'■  AMERICiN  AKD  ENGLISH 
EKGYCLOP^DIA 
OF 
LAW 

.SECOND   EDITION 


EDWAED  THOMPSON  COMPANY 


EXCHANGE 


THE 

American  and  English 
ENCYCLOPEDIA 

OF 

LAW 


EDlTr.U   BY 

DAVID  S.  GARLAND  and  LUCIUS  P.  McGEHEE 

UNDER    THE    SUPERVISION    Ol" 

JAMES    COCKCROFT 


^Schools  bs^       h.%yl~^r\%'co^^ 


SECOND  EDITION 

Volume  XXV. 


NORTHPORT,  LONG  ISLAND,  N.  Y. 

EDWARD  THOMPSON  COMPANY 

London:  C.  D.  CAZENOVE  AND  SON,  26  Henrietta  Street 
1903 


f^l 


Coi'VRIGlIT,   1893, 
BV 

BDWARD  THOMPSON  COMPANY, 
Cdi'ykight,  1903, 

BY 

EDWARD  THOMPSON  COMPANY. 
Aii  rights  reservtd. 


lO. 


SCHOOLS. 

By  a.  S.  H.  Bristow. 

I.  Definitions,  7. 
II.  Teacher,  8. 

1 .  Qualification  and  Certificate,  8. 

^7.   /;/  General,  8.  /•  ^  ^ 

b.   Necessity  of  Certificate  to  Validity  of  Contract,  9. 

(O  I't  General,  9. 

(2)  Effect  of  Refusal  of  Officers  to  Examine,  10. 

(7\  Eifect  of  Subsequent  Issuance  of  Certificate,  .         _ 

(4)  Effect  of  Expiration  of  Certificate  Prior  to  Expiration  of 
Contract,  11. 
c    Indorsement  of  Certificates  of  Other  Districts,  11. 
d    Mandamus  to  Compel  Issuance  of  Certificate,  11. 
e.   Damages  for  Withholding  Certificate,  12. 
/    Revocation  of  License,  \2. 
g.  Damages  for  Wrongful  Revocation,  12. 

2.  Contract,  12. 

a.  In  General,  12. 

b.  Formal  Requisites,  13. 

(i)  ///  General,  13.  ■     ,,r  :■ 

(2)  Statutes  Requiring  Contracts  in  Writing,  14. 
c    Liability  of  Successors  in  Office,  14. 

d.  Contract  with  De  Facto  Officers,  15. 

e.  Employment  of  Substitute  by  Teacher,  15. 

3.  ^^J^^^^^^J";^j^5r^  ^,y  j^^,fi,,  as  Prerequisite  to  Compensation,  15. 

b    Necessity  of  Stipulation  as  to  Compensatuvh  15. 

/    Circumstances  to  Be  Considered  in  Reduction,  16.  _ 

(i)  Closing  School  on  Account  of  Prevalence  of  Epidemic,  16. 

(2)  Destruction  of  School  Building,  16. 

(3)  Closing  on  Account  of  Diminution  of  Pupils,  16. 

(4)  Holidays,  16. 

d.  Mandamus  to  Compel  Payment  of  Salary,  16. 
c.   Pensions,  16. 

4.  Termination  of  Employment,  16. 

a.   Discharge,  16. 

(i)  Discharge  for  Good  Cause,  16. 

(2)  Discharge  Without  Cause,  17. 

(<z)  In  General,  17. 

(^)  Reservation  of  Right  to  Discharge  at  Pleasure,  17. 

(3)  Notice  and  Hearing,  1 8. 

(4)  By  Whom  Discharge  May  Be  Made,  18. 

'((?)  ///  General,   18.  ^     r^     ,     • 

(/;)  Whether  Power  of  Revoking  License  Is  Exclusive,  19. 

(5)  Remedies  for  Wrongful  Discharge,  19. 

(a)  //r/"/'*;//  /^r  Damages,  1 9. 

dr«.   ///  General,  19. 

<^^.    Measure  of  Damages,  20. 

rr.   Statutory  Appeal  as  Prerequisite,  20. 
(^)  Mandamus,  20. 
(<:)  Injunction,  20. 

(^)  Statutory  Appeal  to  Special  Tribunal,  21. 
(<>)  Personal  Liability  of  Directors,  21. 

,  Volume  XXV. 


SCHOOLS. 


in. 


/,, 

'Expiration  of  Term 

of  Service,  2 1 

c. 

Rcsirgnahon,  21. 

Pupil,  22. 

I.  Admission,  22. 

a. 

///  General,  22. 

b. 

Residence,  22. 

c. 

School  Age,  22. 

d. 

Colored  Pupils,  22. 

e. 

Compulsory  Education  Ads,  23. 

f. 

Vaccination  as  a  Pri 

'requisite,  23. 

S- 

Payment  of  Tuition, 

24. 

2.  Punishment,  24. 

<7.    Corporal  Punishment,  24. 
(i)  ///  General,  24. 

(2)  Wanton  or  Malicious  Punishment,  25. 

(3)  Excessive  Punishment,  25. 
^.   Expulsion  and  Suspension,  25. 

(i)  Po7ver  to  Expel,  25. 

(«)   School  Board,  25. 
(^)    Teacher,  25. 

(2)  Grounds  for  Expulsion,  26. 

(<?)  Violation  of  Rules,  26. 
(/^i)  /«  Absence  of  Express  Regulations,  26. 
(f)  Conduct  Authorized  by  Parent,  26. 
(t/)  Conduct  of  Parent,  26. 

(3)  Remedies,  26. 

(rt)  Action  for  Damages,  26. 
(/^)  Manda?nus,  27. 

(^)  Recovery  of  Advance  Payments  to  Private  School,  27 
r.    Offenses  Out  of  School,  27. 
IV.  Rules  and  Regulations,  27. 
V.  Text-books  and  Courses  of  Study,  29. 

1.  Text-books,  29. 

a.  Power  of  Legislature  to  Establish  Uiiiform  Series,  29. 
^.   Change  of  Series,  29. 

r.   Delegation  of  Po7c<er  of  Adoption  or  Change,  30. 
d.   Free  Text-books,  30. 

2.  Courses  of  Study,  30. 

;,.    Relii;i(>us  Exercises,  30. 

VI.  School  Districts,  31. 

1.  Nature  and  Purpose,  31. 

2.  Formation  and  Organization,  32. 

<7.   Authority  to  Create,  32. 
(i)  ///  General,  32. 

(2)  Delegation  of  Authority  to  Officials,  32. 

(3)  Submission  of  Question  to  Vote  of  Inhabitants,  32. 

b.  Requisites  as  to  District  Limits,  ^^. 

c.  Presumption  of  Legality  of  Formation,  33. 

d.  Not  Subject  to  Collateral  'Attack,  34. 

e.  Formation  and  Organization  Distinguished,  34. 
/.    Graded  or  Nigh  School  Districts,  34. 

3.  Alteration  of  Boundaries,  34. 

a.  In  General,  34. 

b.  Creating  School  Districts  in  To^ons  and  Cities,  34. 

c.  Delegation  of  Power  of  Alteration  to  Officials,  35. 

d.  Con  ent  of  Inhabitants,  36. 

(i)   ///  General,  36. 

(2)  Petition,  36. 

(3)  Submission  to  Voters,  37. 

5  Volume  XXV. 


SCHOOLS. 

e.   Notice,  37. 

/.   Regularity  of  Alteration  Not  Subject  to  Collateral  Attack,  37. 
g.   Effect  on  Property  Rights,  38. 
(i)  In  General,  38. 

(2)  Real  Estate,  38. 

(3)  Funds  or  Assets,  38. 

(4)  Abolition  of  Old  District,  39. 
h.   Apportionment  of  Liabilities,  40. 

4.  Meetings,  40. 

a.  Aut/iority  to  Call,  40. 

(i)  ///  General,  40. 

(2)  Fo'ioer  to  Call  Meetings  upon  Default  of  Designated  Officers, 

(3)  Petition  by  Voters,  41. 

b.  How  Called,  41. 

c.  Time  of  Opening  Meeting,  42. 

d.  Place  of  Meeting,  42. 

e.  Presiding  Officer,  42. 

f.  Voting,  42. 

g.  Qualification  of  Voters,  43. 
h.   Record  of  Meeting,  43. 

5.  Poioi'rs  and  Liabilities,  43. 

a.  In  General,  43. 

b.  Exercise  of  Powers  by  Officers  and  Agents,  44. 

c.  Poicer  to  Contract,  44. 

d.  Acquiring  and  Lfolding  Lands,  45. 

e.  Capacity  to  Sue  and  Be  Sued,  45. 

/.    Poicer  to  Submit  Matters  to  Arbitration,  45. 

,<,'-.   Liability  for  Negligence  or  Trespass  by  Officers  or  Agents,  45. 

//.    Liability  to  Execution  of  Private  Property  of  Inhabitant,  45. 

6.  Dissolution  and  slbolition.,  46. 

VII.  School  Buildings,  46. 

1 .  Erection  or  Aajuisition,  46. 

a.  Authority  to  Erect,  46. 

b.  Contract  with  Lowest  Responsible  Bidder,  48. 

c.  Ratification  of  Unauthorized  Contract,  48. 

2.  Care  and  Control,  49. 

a.  Ln  General,  49. 

b.  Allowing  Use  of  School  Building  for  Other  than  School  Purposes, 

49. 

3.  Site,  50. 

a.  Authority  to  Select,  50. 

b.  Taking  Site  by  Right  of  Eminent  Domain,  5  i . 

c.  Change  of  Site,  5  r. 

4.  Sale  of  Building,  c^2. 

VIII.  Officers,  52. 

1.  Superintendents,  52. 

a.  State  Superintendent,  52. 

b.  Count V  Superintendent,  52. 

ii\  Po^oers,  52. 

(2)  Election,   Term  of  Office,  and  Removal.  53. 

(3)  Compensation,  53. 

c.  City  Superintendent,  54. 

2.  Commissioners,  54. 

3.  Boards  of  Education,  54. 

4.  Directors,  Trustees,  etc.,  of  School  Districts,  1:4 

^.    Election,  54. 

^.    Qualification,  55. 

r.   Eligibility,  56. 

C  Volume  XXV. 


Definitions. 


SCHOOLS. 


Definitions. 


d.  Term  of  Office,  56. 

e.  Pouters  and  Duties,  56. 

(i)  ///  Genera/,  56. 

(2)  Necessity  of  Corporate  Action,  56. 

(3)  Care  and  Management  of  Schools,  58. 

(4)  Power  to  Contract,  58. 

(a)  In  General,  58. 

(/')   Contracts  for  Supplies  or  Appe?idages,  59, 

(c)  Contracts  Re(]uired  to  Be  in  Writing,  60. 
(d')  Necessity  of  Recording  Contract,  60. 

(^)  Contract  Between  Board  and  One  of  Its  Af  embers,  60. 
(/)  Ratification  of   Unauthorized  or  Informal  Contract^ 
60. 

(5)  Mandamus  to  Compel  Performance  of  Duty,  61. 

f.  Compensation,  61. 

g.  Personal  Liability,  6 1 . 

(i)  On  Contract,  61. 
(2)  In  Tort,  62. 

(a)    To  Private  Individual,  62. 
\b)  Misappropriation  of  Funds,  62. 
//.   Retnoval  or  Vacation  of  Office,  62. 

IX.  School  Funds,  63. 

1.  ///  General,  63. 

2.  Legislative  Control,  63. 

3.  Apportionment,  64. 

4.  Investment,  66. 

5.  Treasurer,  66. 

6.  School  Warrants,  67. 

CROSS-REFERENCES. 

For  matters  of  Procedure,  see  the  Encyclop.«dia  of  Pleading  and  Practice, 
vol.  ig,  p.  230. 

For  other  matters  of  SUBSTANTIVE  Law  and  EviDEXCE  related  to  this  subject,  see  the 
following  titles  in  this  work:  EXEMP TIONS  (^FROM  TAXATION^  vol. 
12,  p.  266;  MUNICIPAL  SECURITIES,  vol.  21,  p.  13;  PUBLIC  OFFI- 
CERS, vol.  23,  p.  314;  STATE  AND  PUBLIC  LANDS;  TAXATION; 
UNIVERSITIES  AND  COLLEGES;   WARRANTS. 

1.  Definitions.  —  The  word  "  school  "  in  its  broad  sense  is  applied  to  any 
institution  of  learning,  whether  of  low  or  high  grade,  or  whether  it  is  public 
or  private  in  its  character.*  Schools  may  differ  from  each  other  in  other 
respects,  but  they  are  all  alike  in  this  respect,  that  they  require  a  master  or 
instructor  who  teaches,  and  pupils  who  receive  instruction  at  his  hands.- 
Indeed,  the  term  "school"  according  to  American  usage  more  generally 
denotes  the  collective  body  of  pupils  in  any  place  of  instruction  and  under  the 
direction  and  discipline  of  one  or  more  instructors.^ 

Common  or  Public  Schools.  —  The  term    "schools"  in   its  ordinary  acceptation 


1.  School  Defined  in  Broad  Sense.  —  State 
Board  of    Pharmacy  v.   White.  84   Ky.  633. 

Term  Held  to  Include  Private  School  for  Instruc- 
tion in  Writing.  —  Farrall  v.  State,  32  Ala. 
550;    State  V.   Leighton,   35   Me.    195. 

Private  Singing  School.  —  State  v.  Gager,  26 
Conn.  607.  See  also  State  v.  Gager.  28  Conn. 
232. 

Schoolhouse.  —  "A  schoolhouse,  according  to 
Webster,  is  a  '  house  appropriated  to  the  use 
of  schools,  or  for  instruction  :  '  and  according 
to  Worcester,  '  a  house  or  building  in  which   a 


school   is   kept.' "     Luthe   v.   Farmers'    Mut.   F. 
Ins.  Co.,  55   Wis.  543. 

2.  Both  Master  and  Pupils  Kequired.  —  State  v. 
Gager,  28  Conn.  2t,2.  in  which  it  was  held  that 
a  meeting  of  persons  assembled  for  the  purpose 
of  singing  together,  for  their  common  improve- 
ment in  the  art  of  singing,  but  without  a 
teacher,  is  not  a  "  school  "  within  the  meaning 
of  a  statute  imposing  a  penalty  for  the  dis- 
turbance  of  schools,   etc. 

3.  State  V.  Gager.  28  Conn.  232 ;  Matter  of 
Sanders,  53   Kan.   197. 

Volume  XXV. 


Teacher. 


SCHOOLS. 


Qualidcatiou  and  Certificate. 


refers  to  common  or  public  schools.'  Common  or  public  schools  are,  as  a 
general  rule,  schools  supported  by  general  taxation,  open  to  all  of  suitable  age 
and  attainments,  free  of  expense,  and  under  the  control  of  agents  appomted 
by  the  voters,*  and  are  distinguishable  from  private  schools  which  are  sup- 
ported and  managed  by  individuals,"'  and  from  colleges  and  academies  organ- 
ized and  maintained  under  special  charters  for  promoting  the  higher  branches 
of  learning,  and  not  especially  intended  for  nor  limited  to  the  inhabitants  of  a 
particular  locality."*  But  the  words  "  public  school  "  as  generally  used  are  not 
limited  to  the  schools  of  the  lowest  grade,  but  may  include  grammar  schools 
or  high  schools.*  Nor  can  public  or  common  schools  be  limited  to  schools 
wholly  supported  by  the  public.** 

II.  Teacher  —  1.  Qualification  and  Certificate  —  a.  In  General. — A 
teacher  in  a  public  school  in  most  of  the  states  must  obtain  from  the  proper 
official  a  certificate  of  his  qualification  before  entering  upon   Lis  duties;'  and 


1.  Schools   as   Referring    to   Public   Schools.  — 

Boys,  etc..   Aid    Soc.  r.   Reis.   71    Cal.  631. 

Hospital  with  Educational  Feature  Not  a  School 
Within  Meaning  of  Tariff  Act.  —  Massachusetts 
General  Hospital  v.  U.  S.,  (C.  C.  A.)  112  Fed. 
Rep.  670. 

2.  Public  School  Defined.  —  Merrick  v.  Am- 
herst, \2  Allen  (Mass.)  508.  See  also  Collins 
V.   Henderson,   11    Bush   (Ky.)   74. 

Public  Schools  Synonymous  with  Common 
Schools.  —Jenkins  r.  Andover,  103  Mass.  98; 
Roach  V.  St.  Louis  Public  Schools,  yy  Mo.  484; 
People  V.  Board  of  Education,  13  Barb.  (N. 
Y.)  410.  See  also  Richards  v.  Raymond,  92 
111.  61J,  J4  Am.  Rep.  151;  Gushing  v.  New- 
Ijiirypiirt,    10    Met.    (Mass.)    508. 

School  Maintained  by  Orphan  Asylum  Society 
Held  Not  Common  School.  —  People  v.  Board 
of    PJucation,    13    Barb.    (.V.   Y.)    400. 

Xor  is  an  orphan  house  open  only  to  poor 
orphan  children,  although  controlled  by  a  city, 
a  "  free  public  school."  In  re  Malone,  Ji  S. 
Car.  435  :   State  v.  Dovey,    19  Xev.  396. 

3.  Public  School  Distinguished  from  Private 
School.     -    Jenkins   :■.    Andover,    m;,    Mass.    97. 

4.  Public  School  Disting  lished  from  College.  — 
M-;iick   :•.    Ainlieist,    u   .Mien    (Mass.)    509. 

University  or  Other  School  Controlled  by  Trus- 
tees Not  a  Public  School.  —  IJsberry  v.  Seay,  83 
.'\ia.  614:  Hall's  Free  School  Trustees  v. 
florne.   80   Va.  470. 

Grade  of  School.  —  A  "  common  school  "  is  a 
school  that  begins  with  the  rudimenlal  ele- 
ments of  an  education,  whatever  else  it  may 
embrace,  as  contradistinguished  from  academics 
rnd  universities  devoted  exclusively  to  teach- 
ing advanced  pupils  the  higher  branches  of 
study.  Powell  ?•.  Board  of  Education,  97  111. 
378.  ^7  Am.  Hep.    123. 

"  Public  Schools  "  Held  from  Context  to  Include 
Colleges  and  Academies.  —  In  Willard  -■.  Pike, 
50  \'t.  202,  the  words,  "  or  other  public 
schools."  were  held  to  include  colleges  and 
academies,  the  words  from  their  connection 
being  used  in  the  sense  in  which  academies  are 
regarded    as   public   institutions. 

8.   Jenkins  :•.  .Andover.    103   Mass.  97. 

A  High  School  1 -s  been  defined  to  be  a 
school  where  the  higher  branches  of  a  common- 
school  education  are  taught.  Whitlock  v. 
State.  30  Xeb.  ^\^.  See  also  Koester  v.  Atchi- 
son   County.   44   Kan.    141. 

Graded   School.  —  A  graded  school  is  a  school 


divided  into  departments,  taught  by  different 
teachers,  in  which  the  children  pass  from  the 
lower  part  to  the  higher,  as  they  advance  in 
education.  School  Com'rs  v.  State,  129  Ind. 
31,   citing  Cent.    Diet. 

Normal  School  a  Public  School  in  Enlarged 
Sense.  —  People  z\  Crissey,  45  Hun  (N.  Y.)   19. 

6.  Common  Schools  Not  Necessarily  Free  of  All 
Expense  on  Part  of  Pupil.  —  Le  Couteulx  v.  Buf- 
falo, a  N.  Y.  333. 

Thus  it  has  been  held  that  a  school  carried 
on  by  the  corporation  of  London,  not  for  the 
purpose  of  profit,  but  for  the  benefit  of  a  large 
portion  of  the  public,  notwithstanding  that  fees 
were  charged,  was  a  public  school  within  the 
meaning  of  an  act  exempting  public  schools 
from  certain  taxes  if  occupied  under  certain 
specified  conditions.  Blake  v.  London,  19  Q.  B. 
D.  79,  affirming  18  Q.  B.  D.  443.  See  also 
Jenkins  v.  .\ndover,  103  Mass.  99;  Le  Couteulx 
V.   Buffalo,    T,T,   X.   Y.   7,7,2,. 

7.  Statutory  Requirement  of  Certificate  of  Quali- 
fication. —  Casey  ;•.  Baldridge.  15  111.  65;  Stan- 
hope V.  School  Directors,  42  111.  App.  570.  And 
see   the  statutes   of  the  various   states. 

Authority  of  Unlicensed  Teacher  Not  to  Be 
Questioned  by  Pupils  or  Parents.  —  Kidder  v. 
Chellis,    59    X.    H.   473. 

Form  of  Certificate.  —  Under  the  Illinois 
statute,  not  requiring  a  teacher's  certificate  to 
state  upon  its  face  that  an  examination  was 
had  or  what  the  examination  was,  it  has  been 
held  suflicient  if  the  certificate  states  that  the 
person  to  whom  it  is  given  is  qualified  to  teach 
the  branches  enumerated.  Union  School  Dist. 
No.  6  V.  Sterricker,  86   III.  595. 

Under  the  Vermont  statute,  in  which  no  form 
is  prescribed,  it  has  been  held  sufficient  for  the 
superintendent  to  certify  that  the  party  was 
examined  and  approved  by  him  on  a  given  day. 
Wells  t'.   School    Dist.  No.  2,  41   Vt.  354. 

Provisional  License.  —  People  v.  Board  of 
Education,  167  X.  Y.  626,  affirming  56  N.  Y. 
App.  Div.  368.  See  also  People  v.  Maxwell, 
(N.  Y.  1900)  57  N.  E.  Rep.  1120,  affirming  50 
X.   Y.   App.   Div.   538. 

Special  Certificate  by  Secretary  until  Board 
Meeting.  —  Lee  f.  School  Dist.  Number  Two, 
71    Mich.   361. 

Certificate  of  Majority  of  Board.  —  The  certifi- 
cate of  a  majority  of  the  superintending  school 
committee  of  the  town  has  been  held  a  valid 
certificate  under  the  provisions  of  the  Rev.  Stat. 
Volume  XXV. 


Teacher. 


SCHOOLS. 


Qualification  and  Certificate. 


it  iias  been  held  that  tills  requirement  is  mandatory  and  cannot  be  waived.' 

Certificate  as  Prima  Facie  Evidence.  —  A  Certificate  of  qualification  is  held  to  be 
prima  J acic  evidence  of  that  facl."^ 

b.  Necessity  of  Certificate  to  Validity  of  Contract — (i)  /// 
General.  —  A  contract  for  the  employment  in  a  public  school  of  a  teacher  who 
lIocs  not  hold  a  certificate  is  generally  void,*  and  hence  for  services  rendered 
under   such    contract    an   unlicensed    teacher   cannot    recover.*      But    under 


of  Maine,  although  that  majority  did  not  act 
together  in  the  examination.  Stevens  v.  Fas- 
sett,  2y   Me.  266. 

Renewal  Certificate.  —  In  Illinois  it  has  been 
held  that  there  need  be  no  second  examination 
of  a  teacher,  upon  the  granting  of  a  renewal 
certificate,  the  original  certificate  issued  to  him 
upon  examination  having  expired  by  statutory 
limitation.  Doyle  -'.  School  Directors,  36  111. 
App.   653. 

In  Barnhart  v.  Bodenhammer,  31  Mo.  319, 
under  a  statute  providing  that  a  certificate  shall 
not  be  valid  for  more  than  one  year  without 
the  approval  of  the  commissioner  indorsed 
thereon,  it  was  held  that,  although  the  ap- 
proval of  the  commissioner  was  not  indorsed 
in  writing  on  the  certificate,  yet  where  he 
signified  his  approval  in  words  and  declared 
the  teacher  competent,  the  spirit  of  the  law  was 
(umplied   with. 

Subsequent  Alteration  of  Certificate  by  Member 
of  Board  Unauthorized.  —  Hill  v.  Swinney,  72 
.Miss.    248. 

Certificate  to  Teach  Kindergarten  Class.  — 
Sinnott  V.  Colombet,    107   Cal.    187. 

Granting  of  Certificate  to  Holder  of  School 
Diploma.  —  In  Mitchell  t'.  Winnck,  117  Cal. 
520,  it  was  held  that  under  the  Political  Code 
of  California  the  county  boards  of  education 
were  required  to  issue  certificates  to  the  grad- 
uates of  the  various  normal  schools  of  that 
state.  To  same  effect  see  Smith  v.  School 
Dist.  No.  2,  69  Mich.  589.  But  in  Kemble  v. 
McPhaill,  128  Cal.  444,  it  was  held  that  the 
(|uestion  whether  under  the  statute  the  holder 
(>\  a  diploma  of  the  state  university  was  en- 
titled to  a  certificate  was  one  within  the  discre- 
liiiii    of   the   county   bf)ard. 

Statutory  Exemption  from  Examination  After 
Teaching  for  Specified  Time.  —  Doss  v.  Wiley, 
7_'    Miss.    179. 

1.  Requirement  Mandatory.  —  Board  of  Edu- 
cation V.  Arnold,  112  111.  11  ;  Kuenster  v.  Board 
of  Education,  134  111.  165;  Barr  t'.  Deniston, 
19  N.  H.  170;  Baker  v.  School  Dist.  No.  i,  12 
Vt.  192;  Goodrich  t-.  School  Dist.  No.  i,  26 
Vt.    lis;    Welch   v.   Brown.   30   Vt.   586. 

But  in  Michigan  it  has  been  held  that  where 
the  employment  of  an  umiualified  teacher  is  a 
necessity,  the  school  district  is  authorized  to 
employ  one  who  has  not  the  proper  certificate, 
if  the  school  board  is  satisfied  that  the  teacher 
is  otherwise  qualified,  and  to  pay  such  teacher 
out  of  monevs  belonging  to  the  district.  Hale 
V.    Risley.    60    Mich.  ' SQQ. 

Injunction  to  Restrain  Employment  of  Teacher 
Without  Certificate.  —  Catlin  7'.  Christie,  13 
Colo.    App.    201. 

2.  Ce  tificato  as  Prima  Facie  Evidence  of  Quali- 
fi-'Tt'in.  — Neville  v.  School  Directors  No.  i, 
36  111.  71  :  School  Directors  v.  Reddick.  77  111. 
628 ;  Doyle  v.  School  Directors,  36  111.  App. 
653  ;    Barngrover   %•.  Maack,    46   Mo.   App.    407  : 


Com.  V.  Lyndall,  2  Brews.  (Pa.)  425.  See  also 
Hamrick  v.  Board  of  Education,  28  Kan.  385. 
And  in  Vermont  it  has  been  held  that  the 
fact  that  a  certificate  is  granted  without  per- 
sonal examination  into  the  qualification  of  the 
teacher  is  no  impeachment  of  the  certificate, 
and  the  act  which  gives  validity  to  the  cer- 
tificate is  the  judgment  of  the  superintendent 
of  the  qualification  of  the  teacher  upon  such 
evidence  as  is  satisfactory  to  him.  Blanchard 
V.  School  Dist.  No.  11,  29  Vt.  433;  George  f. 
School   Dist.   No.   8.  20  Vt.  495. 

3.  Necessity  of  Certificate  to  Validity  of  Con- 
tract. —  School  Directors  v.  Jennings,  10  111. 
App.  643;  Wells  V.  People  71  111.  532;  Putnam 
V.  Irvington,  69  Ind.  80 ;  Butler  v.  Haines,  79 
Ind.  575  :  Ryan  v.  School  Dist.  No.  13,  27  Minn. 
433:   Blandon  i\  Moses,  29  Hun   (N.  Y. )  606. 

Necessity  of  Actual  Delivery  of  Certificate.  — 
Where  the  superintendent  has  made  a  definite 
decision  of  the  question  of  the  teacher's  fitness 
upon  such  evidence  as  is  satisfactory  to  him, 
and  a  certificate  is  made  out  tc  that  effect  but 
is  not  delivered  until  a  later  time,  it  has  been 
held  that  the  certificate  takes  efi'ect  from  its 
date  and  not  from  its  delivery,  the  act  which 
gives  validity  to  the  certificate  being  the  judg- 
ment of  the  superintendent  of  the  qualification 
of  the  teacher  upon  such  evidence  as  is  satis- 
factory to  him,  and  the  certificate  itself  being 
a  record  merely  of  tlie  judgment.  Blanchard  f. 
School    Dist.  No.   11,   20   \'t.  433. 

Employment  of  Unlicensed  Teacher  an  Indict- 
able Offense. —  In  fcnncssce  it  has  been  held 
an  indictable  offense  under  statute  for  the  com- 
mon-school commissioners  to  employ  a  teacher 
who  has  no  certificate.  Robinson  f.  State,  2 
Coldw.   (Tenn.)    181. 

4.  No  Recovery  on  Contract  of  Unlicensed 
Teacher  —  Illinois.  —  Casey  v.  Baldridge,  15  111. 
65  ;  Botkin  v.  Osborne.  39  111.  loi  ;  Stevenson  v. 
School  Directors  Dist.  No.  i,  87  111.  255. 

Indiana.  —  Harrison  Tp.  f.  Conrad,  26  Ind. 
337  ;  Putnam  f .  Irvington,  69  Ind.  80. 

Io7va.  —  Perkins  r.   Wolf,   17   Iowa  228. 

Maine.  —  Jackson  f.  Hampden,  20  Me.  37; 
Brown  v.  Chesterville,  63  Me.  241. 

Michigan.  —  Lee  r.  School  Dist.  Number 
Two,  71  Mich.  361  ;  Devoe  t'.  School  Dist.  No. 
Three,  77  Mich.  610;  Bryan  ?'.  Fractional 
School  Dist.  No.  i,   in   Mich.  67. 

Minnesota.  —  Jenness  v.  School-Dist.  No.  31, 
12  Minn.  448;  Ryan  v.  School-Dist.  No.  13,  27 
Minn.  433. 

A^ehrasha.-^  -School  Dist.  No.  8  z'.  Estes,  13 
Neb.  52. 

Nezi'  Hampshire.  —  Barr  v.  Deniston,  19  N. 
H.  170. 

Nezv  York.  —  Blandon  v.  Moses,  29  Hun  ("N. 
Y.)  60(1. 

North  Dakota.  —  Goose  River  Bank  f.  Willow 
Lake  School  Tp.,  i  N.  Dak.  26,  26  Am.  St.  Rep. 
605. 

Volume  XXV. 


Teacher. 


SCHOOLS. 


Qualification  and  Certificate 


statute  in  Vermont,  providing  that  any  contract  for  teaching  school  shall  be 
null  and  void  if  the  teacher  fails  to  obtain  a  certificate  of  qualification  before 
the  commencement  of  the  school,  it  has  been  held  that  the  continuing  of  the 
school  by  the  teacher  with  the  consent  and  approbation  of  the  prudential 
committee,  after  he  had  obtained  a  certificate  of  qualification,  is  equivalent  to 
making  a  new  contract  to  commence  then  upon  the  same  terms  as  the  original 
contract,  and  the  fact  that  he  had  kept  the  school  for  a  time  under  an  express 
contract  which  the  law  avoided  would  not  make  void  this  implied  contract, 
although  the  express  contract  had  to  be  looked  at  to  ascertain  the  terms  of 
the  implied  contract.* 

(2)  Effect  of  Refusal  of  Officers  to  Examine.  —  It  has  been  held  that  the 
fact  that  the  proper  ofiicers  neglected  or  even  wantonly  refused  to  examine 
the  applicant  will  not  authorize  him  to  teach  and  to  recover  his  wages  without 
the  required  certificate,  the  production  of  the  certificate  being  considered  an 
indispensable  prerequisite  to  legal  employment.* 

(3)  Effect  of  Subsequent  Issuance  of  Certificate. — In  some  jurisdictions  it 
is  held  that  the  contract  is  not  rendered  valid  by  the  subsequent  issuance  of  a 
certificate  to  the  teacher. •■*  Under  the  statutes  of  other  jurisdictions,  how- 
ever, there  will  be  no  forfeiture  of  compensation  though  the  teacher  has  no 
certificate  at  the  date  of  the  contract,  provided  a  certificate  is  procured  before 
he  engages  in  the  discharge  of  his  duties  as  teacher."* 


Tennessee.  —  Robinson  v.  State,  2  Coldw. 
(Tenn.)   181. 

Vermont.  ■ —  Welch  v.  Brown,  30  Vt.  586. 

School  Warrant  —  Issued  to  Unlicensed  Teacher 
Held  Invalid.  —  Goose  River  Bank  z\  Willow 
Lake  School  Tp.,  i  N.  Dak.  26,  26  Am.  St.  Rep. 
60s. 

Burden  of  Proof  on  Town  to  Show  Want  of 
Certificate.  —  In  Rolfe  v.  Cooper,  20  Me.  154,  it 
was  held  that  proof  by  the  master  of  a  school 
that  he  was  employed  by  the  regular  authorized 
agent  of  the  school  district,  and  actually  per- 
formed the  services  contracted  for,  prima  facie 
entitled  him  to  the  stipulated  compensation,  and 
that  if  the  town  wished  to  avail  itself  of  the 
want  of  the  requisite  certificate  as  a  defense,  it 
must   prove   such   want. 

Certificate  Not  Subject  to  Attack  in  Action  for 
Wages.  —  Doyle  ;■.  School  Directors.  36  111. 
App.  653 ;  see  also  Vanarsdale  v.  Laverty,  69 
Pa.  St.  103.  At  least  on  grounds  other  than 
fraud  or  collusion.  Kimball  v.  School  Dist.  No. 
122,  23  Wash.  520.  Thus  in  Union  School 
Dist.  No.  6  V.  Sterricker,  86  III.  595,  in  a  suit 
for  services,  it  was  held  that  the  certificate 
could  not  be  invalidated  by  proof  that  no  per- 
sonal examination  of  the  teacher  was  had,  on 
the  ground  that  the  certificate  being  in  the  na- 
ture of  a  commission  could  not  be  attacked  col- 
laterally. To  same  effect  see  School  Dist.  No. 
25  V.  Stone,  14  Colo.  App.  211.  See  also  State 
V.   Grosvenor,   19   Neb.  494. 

Restraining  Payment.  —  In  Barr  v.  Deniston, 
19  N.  H.  170,  it  was  held  that  a  judgment  re- 
covered against  a  school  district  in  favor  of  a 
teacher  without  a  certificate,  for  compensation, 
by  the  consent  of  the  district,  may  be  restrained 
by  injunction  at  the  suit  of  any  person  inter- 
ested as  a  taxpayer  within  the  district,  suing  in 
behalf  of  himself  and  others.  See  also  Perkins 
V.  Wolf,  17  Iowa  228. 

But  it  has  been  held  that  a  county  superin- 
tendent has  no  power  to  sue  out  an  injunction 
for  this  purpose.     Perkins  v.  Wolf,  17  Iowa  228. 


Effect  of  Payment.  —  In  School  Dist.  No.  8  v. 

Estes,  13  Neb.  52,  it  was  held  that  where  a 
teacher  received  compensation  for  a  portion  of  a 
term  during  which  he  was  without  a  certificate, 
the  district  board  could  not  recover  the  money 
for  the  district  or  set  it  off  against  wages 
earned  during  a  time  when  the  teacher  had  a 
certificate. 

So  it  has  been  held  that  if  a  town  has  paid  to 
the  person  who  held  the  place  of  agent  of  the 
district  an  amount  of  money  sufficient  to  pay  a 
teacher,  and  for  his  use  it  was  so  received  by 
the  agent,  it  would  become  the  property  of  the 
teacher,  and  he  might  maintain  an  action  against 
the  agent  to  recover  it,  although  he  was  without 
a  certificate  during  the  period  of  his  employ- 
ment.    Dore  V.  Billings,  26  Me.  56. 

1.  Scott  V.  School  Dist.  No.  2,  46  Vt.  452. 

2.  Jackson  v.  Hampden,  20  Me.  37.  Compare 
Wells  v.  School  Dist.  No.  2,  41  Vt.  353.  See 
also  Paul  V.  School  Dist.  No.  2,  28  Vt.  575; 
Blanchard  f.  School  Dist.  No.  11,  29  Vt.  433. 

3.  Contract  Held  Not  Validated  by  Subsequent 
Issuance  of  Certificate. —  Putnam  v.  Irvington, 
69  Ind.  So;  Butler  v.  Haines,  79  Ind.  575:  Jcn- 
ncss  v.  School  Dist.  No.  31,  12  Minn.  448; 
Hosmer  v.  Sheldon  School  Dist.  No.  2,  4  N. 
Dak.  197,  50  Am.  St.  Rep.  639;  O'Connor  v. 
Francis,  42  N.  Y.  App.  Div.  375.  Compare 
^^"clls  r.  School  Dist.  No.  2.  41   Vt.  35.3- 

Certificate  Procured  on  Evening  of  Day  of  Com- 
mencement of  School  Held  Sufficient.  —  Paul  v. 
School  Dist.  No.  2.  28  \'t.  5;5. 

4.  Hotz  f.  School  Dist.  No.  9,  i  Colo.  App. 
40  ;  School  Dist.  No.  2  v.  Dilman,  22  Ohio  St. 
194;  Youmans  v.  Board  of  Education,  7  Ohio 
Cir.   Dec.  269,    13  Ohio   Cir.  Ct.  207. 

In  Illinois,  prior  to  July  i,  1893,  the  statute 
provided  that  no  teacher  should  be  entitled  to 
any  portion  of  the  school  fund,  nor  be  employed 
to  teach,  who  had  not,  at  the  time  of  the  em- 
ployment, a  certificate  of  qualification.  Wells 
f.  People,  71  111.  532;  School  Directors  v.  New- 
man, 47  111.  App.  364.  See  also  School  Dist. 
Volume  XXV. 


Teacher. 


SClfOOLS. 


Qualification  and  Certificate. 


(4)  Effect  of  Expiration  of  Certificate  Prior  to  Expiration  of  Contract.  — 
In  Vermont  it  has  been  held  that  the  fact  that  the  force  of  a  teacher's  certifi- 
cate expires  by  its  own  limitation  before  the  expiration  of  the  period  for 
which  the  contreict  was  made  will  not  defeat  the  teacher's  right  to  recover  for 
services  under  the  contract  subsequent  to  the  expiration  of  the  certificate, 
where  the  period  of  the  contract  was  of  the  ordinary  length,  and  there  was 
nothing  to  impeach  the  good  faith  of  the  parties.*  And  under  statute  in 
Missouri  it  has  been  held  that  a  teacher  is  not  required  to  have  at  the  time  of 
employment  a  certificate  which  reaches  to  the  end  of  the  term  of  such  employ- 
ment, but  it  will  be  sufficient  if  the  certificate  is  renewed  upon  its  expiration.^ 

c.  Indorsement  of  Certificates  of  Other  Districts.  —  In  some 
jurisdictions  provision  is  made  by  statute  for  the  indorsement  by  the  superin- 
tendent of  a  county  or  district  of  certificates  issued  by  superintendents  of 
other  counties  or  districts  and  sometimes  of  other  states,*  and  such  indorse- 
ment, during  the  time  for  which  it  was  granted,  is  valid  unless  set  aside  for 
some  of  the  causes  that  would  authorize  the  revocation  of  a  certificate.'* 
And  it  has  even  been  held  that  the  possession  of  a  certificate  from  another 
district,  which  may  be  validated  in  the  new  district  by  the  proper  officer,  will 
be  sufficient  authority  to  permit  the  teacher  to  enter  upon  his  employment 
after  a  promise  by  that  officer  to  execute  the  necessary  papers.* 

d.  Mandamus  to  Compel  Issuance  of  Certificate.  — Where  the 
applicant's  fitness  to  receive  a  certificate  has  been  determined  in  his  favor,  and 
no  discretionary  power  is  vested  in  an  officer  or  board  of  officers  as  to  the 
issuance  of  a  certificate,  mandainus  will  lie  to   compel  such  issuance.®     But 


No.  4  V.  Stilley,  36  111.  App.  133.  But  by  the 
amendment  in  force  on  the  day  mentioned,  it  is 
sufficient  that  the  teacher  shall  have  the  certifi- 
cate ■■  at  the  time  he  enters  upon  his  duties  as 
such  teacher."  Pollard  v.  School  Dist.  No.  9, 
65  111.  App.  104;  School  Directors  Dist.  No. 
Two  V.  Orr,  88  111.  App.  648. 

Under  statute  in  Massaclutsctts.  providing 
that  every  teacher  shall,  before  he  opens  school, 
obtain  from  the  committee  a  cqrtiticate  in  dupli- 
cate of  his  qualifications,  and  one  of  these  cer 
tificates  shall  be  deposited  with  the  selectmen 
before  any  payment  is  made  to  the  teacher,  it 
has  been  held  that  while  the  committee  might 
prevent  a  teacher  whom  they  had  hired  from 
opening  school  before  he  had  obtained  the  cer- 
tificates, if  they  first  vote  to  give  them  and 
then  allow  him  to  open  school  before  he  has 
them  in  hand,  the  fact  that  he  never  obtains  the 
certificates  in  duplicate  and  that  he  does  not  ob- 
tain one  and  deposit  it  with  the  selectmen  until 
two  days  after  he  opens  school  does  not  pre- 
vent him  from  recovering  compensation  for 
services  rendered  after  he  has  obtained  his  cer- 
tificate and  has  deposited  it  with  the  selectmen  ; 
and  that  the  committee  having  authorized  the 
chairman  to  sign  the  certificate  for  the  com- 
mittee, his  signature  in  accordance  with  their 
action  made  the  certificate  a  proper  one  under 
the  statute.     Libby  f.  Douglas,  175  Mass.  128. 

1.  Holman  v.  School  Dist.  No.  4.  34  Vt.  270. 
Bui  see  Kimball  v.  School  Dist.  No.  122,  23 
Wash.  520,  in  which  it  was  held  that  no  recov- 
ery could  be  had  in  an  action  fr.r  breach  of  con- 
tract in  refusing  to  allow  the  plaintifl'  to  begin 
her  services,  where  it  appeared  that  she  had 
contracted  to  teach  for  an  entire  term  of  nine 
months,  but  had  a  certificate  for  two  months 
only. 

2,  Provision  for  Renewal.  —  School  Dist. 
Number   i  v.  Edmondston,  50  Mo.  App.  65. 


3.  Indorsement  of  Certificates  of  Other  Districts. 

—  State  f.  (jrosvenor,  19  Neb.  494;  School 
Dist.  No.  9  z:  Brown,  55  Vt.  61.  See  also 
George  v.  School  Dist.  No.  8,  20  Vt.  495  : 
Blanchard  v.  School  Dist.  No.  11,  29  Vt.  433. 

Provision  for  Indorsement  of  First  Grade  Certifi- 
cate. —  School  Dist.  No.  i  z\  Ross,  4  Colo.  App. 
493- 

Indorsement  Made  Compulsory  on  Superintend- 
ent.—  Jordan  f.  Davis.  10  Okla.  329.  But  see 
State  f.  Grosvcnor,  19  Neb.  494. 

4.  Slate  z\  Grof:venor,  19  Neb.  494. 
Indorsement  Not  Subject  to  Collateral  Attack  in 

Absence  of  Fraud.  —  State  z:  Grosvenor,  19  Neb. 
494. 

6.   School  Dist.  .\o.  9  ''■  Brown,  55  Vt.  61. 

6.  Mandamus  to  Compel  Issuance  of  Certificate. 

—  Keller  r.  Hewitt,  too  Cal.  146:  McManus  v. 
School   Controllers,   7    Phiia.    (Pa.)    23. 

Compelling  Issuance  by  County  Judge.  —  Cruse 
r.  McQueen,  (Tex.  Civ.  App.  1894)  25  S.  W. 
Rep.  711. 

Mandamus  to  Compel  Examination  by  Superin- 
tendent.        Stioup  T.  Hccr,  25  Pa.  Co.  Ct.  i. 

Mandamus  to  Compel  Recognition  of  Teacher.  — 
.\fler  a  teacher's  right  to  ti_ach  has  been  deter- 
mined by  the  state  superintendent  on  appeal 
without  any  further  appeal,  it  is  the  plain  duty 
of  the  board  of  trustees  to  observe  the  decision 
of  that  officer,  and  mandamus  will  lie  to  compel 
the  board  to  recognize  such  teacher.  Pearsall 
z:  Woolls,  (Tex.  Civ.  App.  1899)  50  S.  W.  Rep. 
950- 

Mandamus  to  Compel  Employment  of  Licensed 
Teacher.  —  In  Misxissij^/"'  't  has  been  held  that 
a  duly  licensed  teacher,  selected  by  the  public 
school  trustees,  may  maintain  mandamus  to 
compel  the  county  superintendent  to  enter  into 
a  contract  with  him,  for  the  sui^erintendent  can- 
not refuse  to  employ  a  teacher  for  the  same 
causes  for  which  he  is  allowed  by  statute  to  sus- 

Volume  XXV. 


Te»«h«r. 


SCHOOLS. 


Contract. 


this  remedy  cannot  be  resorted  to,  to  compel  the  issuance  of  a  certificate 
which  has  been  refused  by  the  board,  in  the  exercise  of  a  discretionary  power 
vested  in  them,  on  the  ground  of  the  applicant's  unfitness.* 

e.  Damages  for  Withholding  Certificate.  —  It  has  been  held  that 
while  the  discretion  conferred  upon  a  superintendent  on  the  subject  of  licens- 
ing teachers  is  so  analogous  to  a  judicial  discretion  that  he  is  protected  from 
any  claim  for  damages  on  account  of  any  mere  mistake  in  his  decision  or  error 
in  judgment  in  withholding  a  license  from  an  applicant,  yet  he  will  be  liable 
for  maliciously  withholding  the  license.* 

/.  Revocation  of  License.  —  Authority  to  revoke  a  teacher's  license  or 
certificate  is  conferred  by  the  statutes  of  various  states  on  the  county  superin- 
tendent or  other  officer  or  board,  the  causes  of  revocation  being  enumerated 
in  some  of  the  statutes.-'* 

Notification  of  Teacher  Required.  —  But  many  of  the  statutes  require  a  previous 
notice  of  the  charges  against  him  to  be  given  to  the  teacher,*  and  in  the 
absence  of  such  notice,  it  is  held,  the  teacher  has  the  right  to  continue  to  teach 
school  and  to  have  his  salary  paid.* 

g.   Damages  for  Wrongful  Revocation.  — When,  after  a  fair  investi- 
gation, the  proper  officer  honestly  concludes  that  a  teacher  has  been  guilty  of 
such  conduct  as  under  the  statute  justifies  a  revocation  of  his  license,  he  is  not 
liable  for  damages,  whether  the  decision  be  correct  or  not,  and  to  render  him 
liable  it  must  be  shown  not  only  that  he  acted  erroneously,  but  also  mali- 
ciously.®    But  the  officer  must  act  within  his  jurisdiction  and  must  do  what  the 
law  directs  before   exercising  his  discretion,  and   hence,   where   the  statute 
requires  that  the  teacher  shall  be  cited  or  summoned  for  examination  upon 
j^the  charges  preferred  against  him  before  the  revocation  of  his  license,  revo- 
^ cation  without  such  notice  will  render  the  officer  liable  for  damages.'' 
«        2.  Contract  —  a.  In  General.  —  In  general,  the  school  directors  or  trustees 
•or    other  similar  officers  are  authorized  to  employ  teachers  in    the    manner 
"prescribed  by  law.*     A  school  district  will  be  liable  where  the  officers  of  the 
district  violate  an  executory  contract  with  a  teacher,  such  as  they,  representing 


pend  or  remove  a  teacher  from  office.  Brown 
V.  Owen,  75  Miss.  319. 

1.  Bailey  v.  Ewart,  52  Iowa  iii. 

2.  Liability  for  Wilful  Withholding  of  License. 

—  Elmore  v.  Overton,  104  Ind.  548,  54  Am. 
Rep.    343- 

3.  Eevocation  of  Teacher's  License.  —  Wilson 
V.  Hitc,  (Ky.  1900)  54  S.  W.  Rep.  726;  People 
V.  Board  of  Education,  17  Barb.  ( N.  Y.)  299; 
Scheibner  f.  Baer,  174  Pa.  St.  482.  See  also 
Daviess  County  v.  Taylor,   105  Ky.  387. 

Concurrence  of  Local  Trustees  Held  Necessary. 

—  The  county  superintendent,  in  cancelinR  the 
teacher's  certificate  without  the  concurrence  of 
the  local  trustees,  does  not.  it  has  been  held. 
deprive  him  of  compensation  if  he  still  teaches 
until  the  end  of  the  term.  Jamison  v.  Senter, 
56  Miss.   194. 

4.  Previous  Notice  to  Teacher  Required  by  Stat- 
ute. —  Wilson  -•.  Hite,  (Ky.  1000)  54  S.  W. 
Rep.  726;  Scheibner  v.  Baer.  174  Pa.  St.  482, 
afRrmiug  judgment   4    Pa.    Dist.   633. 

Prior  Statutory  Notice  to  Teacher  and  Trustees 
Required.  —  Finch  f.  Cleveland,  10  Barb.  (N. 
Y.)    290. 

6.  Wilson  V.  Hite.  (Ky.  1900)  54  S.  W.  Rep. 
,-26. 

6.  Necessity  of  Malice  to  Fix  Liability  for  Rev- 
ocation.—  Lee  r.  Huff,  61   .-\rk.  404. 

Hatred  or  Ill-will  Unnecessary.  —  To  estab- 
lish malice  it  is  not  necessary  to  prove  personal 


hatred  or  ill-will  towards  a  teacher  on  the  part 
of  the  officer,  but  malice  may  be  inferred  if  the 
officer's  authority  is  exercised  rashly,  wickedly, 
or  wantonly.  Lee  v.  Huff,  61  Ark.  494;  Love 
-■.  Moore,  45  111.   12. 

7.  Liability  for  Revocation  of  License  Without 
Notice.  — Lee  v.   Huff,  61   Ark.  494. 

8.  Authority  to  Contract  with  Teachen  — 
Indiana.  —  Crawfordsville  v.  Hays,  42  Ind. 
200. 

Iowa.  —  Galentine  v.  District  Tp.,  (Iowa 
1900)  82  N.  W.  Rep.  993 ;  Potter  v.  District 
Tp.,  40  Iowa  369  ;  Benson  v.  District  Tp.,  100 
Iowa  328;  Althearn  v.  Independent  Dist.,  2i 
Iowa  105 ;  Thompson  v.  Linn,  35  Iowa  361  ; 
Gambrell  v.  District  Tp.,  54  Iowa  417;  Conner 
V.  District  Tp.,  35  Iowa  375  ;  Cook  v.  Inde- 
pendent School  Dist.,  40  Iowa  444 ;  Independ- 
ent Dist.  V.  Rhodes,  88  Iowa  570. 

Kansas.  —  School  Dist.  v.  Colvin,  10  Kan. 
283. 

Nebraska.— Jones  v.  Nebraska  City,  i  Neb. 
176;  Bays  V.  State,  6  Neb.  167;  Vallery  v. 
State,  42  Neb.   127- 

North  Carolina.  —  See  Skinner  v.  Bateman, 
96  N.  Car.  5. 

Ohio.  —  Sub-school  Dist.  No.  7  r.  Burton,  26 
Ohio  St.  421. 

Pcnnsylz'ania.  —  Schoo]  Dist.  7'.  Padden,  89 
Pa.  St.  395.  See  also  Kingsley  7k  School  Di- 
rectors, 2  Pa.  St.  28. 

Volume  XXV. 


Teacher. 


SCHOOLS. 


Contract. 


the  school  district  in  its  corporate  capacity,  are  authorized  to  make.  And  the 
mere  fact  that  the  district  has  received  no  benefit  under  the  contract  will  be 
immaterial.* 

b.  Formal  Requisites  —  (i)  In  General.  —  Statutory  regulations  as  to 
the  manner  of  the  formation  of  the  contract  must  be  complied  with.- 


Tennessee.  —  Parker  v.  School  Dist.  No.  38, 
5  Lea  (Tenn.)  525 ;  Mitchell  v.  Williams, 
(,Tenn.  Ch.    1897)   46  S.  W.  Rep.  325. 

Texas.  —  Singleton  v.  Austin,  (Tex.  Civ. 
App.    1901)    6s    S.   W.   Rep.  686. 

Power  Vested  in  Prudential  Committee  — 
School  Dist.  No.  7  v.  Currier,  45  N.  H.  573 ; 
Mason  v.  School  Dist.  No.  14,  20  Vt.  487 ; 
Scliool  Dist.  Xo.  13  V.  Harvey,  56  Vt.  556.  See 
also  Cobb  i\  School   Dist.  Xo.   i,  63   Vt.  647. 

Texas  Statute  Requiring  Approval  of  County 
Judge  in  Certain  Cases.  —  Caviel  -c.  Coleman,  72 
Te.x.   550. 

Under  Statute  in  Ohio  authority  to  elect 
teachers  is  vested  in  the  directors  of  subdis- 
tiicts  subject  to  confirmation  by  a  majority  of 
the  township  board  of  education.  Youmans  v. 
IJoard  of  Education,  7  Ohio  Cir.  Dec.  269,  13 
Ohio  Cir.  Ct.  207  ;  Board  of  Education  v.  Mc- 
Fadden,  8  Ohio  Dec.  57,  6  Ohio  N.  P.  227; 
State  V.  Board  of  Education,  10  Ohio  Cir.  Dec. 
678,  19  Ohio  Cir.  Ct.  574;  Rush  v.  Board  of 
Education,  11  Ohio  Cir.  Dec.  181,  20  Ohio  Cir. 
Ct.  361. 

Authority  Vested  in  School  Agent.  —  Moor  v. 
XewfieJd,   4   Me.   44. 

Authority  Conferred  on  Mayor  and  City  Council. 

—  Patterson  v.  Butler,  83   Ga.  606. 
Authority  Vested  Primarily  in  District.  —  Gil- 
man  V.  Bassett,  :>,2,  Conn.  298.     See  also  Wilson 
:-.    Waltersville    School    Dist.,  44   Conn.    157. 

Necessity  of  Approval  by  President  of  Board  of 
Contracts  Made  by  Subdirectors.  —  Tliompson  v. 
Linn,  35  Iowa  361  ;  Gambrcll  v.  District  Tp., 
54  Iowa  417;  Place  v.  District  Tp.,  56  Iowa 
573  ;    Benson  v.   District   Tp.,   100  Iowa  328. 

Objection  on  Part  of  Patrons.  —  Under  a  stat- 
ute providing  that  the  trustees  shall  not  employ 
any  teacher  whom  a  majority  of  those  entitled 
to  vote  at  school  meetings  have  decided  at  a 
regular  school  meeting  they  do  not  wish  em- 
ployed, it  has  been  held  that  a  contract  to  teach, 
entered  into  in  good  faith  before  any  objection 
on  the  part  of  the  patrons  of  the  school  is 
made  known,  is  not  invalid.  Rumble  v.  Barker, 
2-j  Ind.  App.  69. 

In  State  v.  Smith,  49  Neb.  755,  it  was  held 
that  the  employment  of  teachers  for  the  public 
schools  is  one  of  the  duties  cast  by  law  upon 
the  district  boards,  and  the  discretion  and  de- 
cision of  the  officers  composing  such  a  board, 
as  to  whom  they  will  employ  as  a  teacher,  can- 
not be  controlled  by  writs  of  mandamus,  issued 
at  the  instance  of  taxpayers  and  voters  of  the 
distrirt. 

Power  of  Appointment  Not  to  Be  Interfered  with 
by  the  Courts  Except  in  Case  of  Abuse  of  Discretion. 

—  Youmans    v.    Board    of    Education,    7    Ohio 
Cir.   Dec.   269,   13   Ohio  Cir.  Ct.   207. 

Right  to  Employ  Member  of  Religious  Order.  — 
No  ineligibility  to  act  as  teacher  of  a  public 
school  can  arise  because  of  religious  belief,  and 
hence,  in  the  absence  of  proof  of  religious 
sectarian  instruction  or  exercises,  an  injunction 
will   not   lie  to   restrain    school    directors    from 


13 


employing  as  teachers  sisters  or  nuns  of  a  so- 
ciety of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church,  the  dis- 
cretion of  the  board  in  this  respect,  when  it  does 
not  transgress  the  law,  not  being  reviewable 
by  the  courts.  Hysong  v.  Gallitzen  Borough 
School  Dist..  164  Pa.  St.  629,  44  .'X.in.  St.  Rep. 
632. 

Prudential  Committee  as  Teacher,  —  It  has 
been  held  under  a  statute  providing  that  a  pru- 
dential committee  of  a  school  district  "  shall 
appoint  and  agree  with  a  teacher  to  instruct  the 
school,  and  remove  him  when  necessary,"  that  a 
person  acting  as  a  prudential  committee  of  a 
school  district  cannot  himself  instruct  the  school 
and  recover  on  a  quantum  meruit,  but  that  if  the 
district  subsequently  assents  to  the  employ- 
ment it  will  be  liable  for  the  teacher's  services. 
Scott  V.  School  Dist.  No.  9,  67  Vt.  150. 

1.  Jackson  School  Tp.  v.  Shera,  8  Ind.  App. 
330;  Johnson  v.  Common  School  Dist.  No.  13, 
(Ky.  1897)  38  S.  W.  Rep.  861;  Mingo  v. 
Colored  Common-School  Dist.  No.  a,  (Ky. 
1902)   68  S.  W.  Rep.  483- 

Filing  Claim  for  Breach  of  Contract  Before 
Auditing  Board  Held  Unnecessary.  ■ —  Oil  School 
Tp.  v.   Marting.   27    Ind.  .'Xpp.  525. 

2.  Formal  Requisites  under  Statutes.  —  Gam- 
brell  z\  District  Tp..  54  Iowa  417:  Place  z: 
District  Tp.,  56  Iowa  573  ;  Dyberry  School 
Dist.  V.  Mercer,  115  Pa.  St.  559.  See  also 
Everett  v.  I^ractional  School  Dist.  No.  2,  30 
Mich.  240. 

Failure  of  Director  to  Sign  Contract,  —  In  Far- 
rell  -'.  School-Dist.  No.  2,  98  Mich.  43,  it  was 
held  that  it  is  not  in  the  power  of  a  school 
director  to  defeat  the  action  of  the  board  of 
trustees  by  refusing  to  sign  a  contract  to  teach, 
authorized  by  it. 

Signing  by  Majority  of  Trustees  Held  Sufficient. 
—  McGuiness  v.  School  Dist.  No.  10,  39  Minn. 
499;  Crane  v.  School  Dist.  No.  Six,  61  Mich. 
304 ;  School  Dist.  No.  25  v.  Stone,  14  Colo. 
App.  211. 

Contract  Not  Avoided  by  Failure  to  File.  — 
McShane  v.  School  Dist.  Number  5,  70  Mo. 
App.  624. 

Contract  Not  Invalidated  by  Failure  to  Execute 
in  Duplicate.  —  McShane  r.  School  Dist.  Num- 
ber 5,  70  Mo.  .-Vpp.  624. 

Simultaneous  Signi"p  Held  Unnecessary.  —  Mil- 
ford  V.  Zeigler,  i  Ind.  App.  138;  Holloway  v. 
School  Dist.  Xo.  Nine,  62  Mich.  153;  Dolan  v. 
Joint    School    Dist.   No.    13,  80   Wis.    155. 

Enjoining  Performance  of  Contract  Not  Signed 
by  President  of  Board, —  In  School  Dist.  Num- 
ber I  f.  Edmonston.  50  Mo,  App.  65.  it  was 
held  that  a  court  of  equity  could  not  enjoin  a 
teacher  from  performing  a  contract,  on  the 
ground  that  it  was  not  a  legal  contract,  where 
the  illegality  arose  from  the  failure  of  the 
president  of  the  board  to  sign  the  contract  in 
the   performance   of  a  duty  imposed  upon   him. 

Recital  of  Time  School  Is  to  Be  Taught.  —  In 
Burkhead  z:  Independent  School  Dist.,  107 
Iowa  29,  it  was  held  that  a  contract  is  not  in- 
Volume  XXV. 


Teacher. 


SCHOOLS. 


Contract. 


(2)  Statutes  Requiring  Contracts  in  Writing.  —  In  some  jurisdictions  it  is 
essential  to  the  validity  of  a  contract  between  a  teacher  and  the  trustees  or 
directors  of  a  school  district  that  it  should  be  in  \vritin<j.*  And  it  has  been 
held  that  this  statutory  requirement  cannot  be  waived,  and  no  recovery  can 
be  had  on  an  onil  contract  made  by  a  school  teacher  with  the  trustees  for 
services  performed  thereunder,  either  in  an  action  upon  the  contract*  or  on  a 
quantum  meruit!^  But  in  the  absence  of  statutory  provision  it  is  not  essential 
to  the  validity  of  the  contract  that  it  should  be  in  writing.* 

c.  Liability  of  Successors  in  Office.  —  School  districts  are  quasi- 
corporations,  and  trustees  are  officers  of  them,  and  when  they  act  officially 
and  within  their  jurisdiction  they  bind  the  corporation  which  they  represent, 
and  their  legal  contracts  for  the  employment  of  teachers  may  be  enforced 
against  their  successors  in  office. '*  Where  there  is  no  statute  limiting, 
expressly  or  by  implication,  the  time  wherein  a  contract  may  be  made,"  the 
prevailing  decisions  concede  the  power  to  the  board  of  dncctors  or  other 
proper  officers  to  enter  into  agreements  for  a  period  commencing  or  extending 
beyond  their  term  of  office,  or  at  least  the  term  of  office  of  a  part  of  the 
members  of  the  board,'   provided  the  contract  is  made    in    good   faith    and 


valid  because  it  did  not  state  the  time 
the  school  was  to  be  taught,  as  required  by  the 
code,  where  the  rules  and  regulations  of  the 
district  fixed  the  time  the  schools  were  to  be 
open   and  were  made  a  part  of  the   contract. 

1.  Statutes  Requiring  Contracts  to  Be  in  Writ- 
ing.—Lewis  V.  Hayden.  (Ky.  1897)  38  S.  W. 
i\cii.  1054:  Mingo  V.  Colored  Conunon-School 
Dist.  Xo.  A,  (Ky.  1902)  68  S.  W.  Rep.  483; 
McGuiness  v.  School  Dist.  No.  10,  39  Minn. 
499 ;  Leland  v.  School  Dist.  No.  28,  tj  Minn. 
469;  Langston  v.  School  Dist.  No.  3,  121  Mich. 
654;  Hutchins  v.  School  Dist.  No.  i,  128 
Mich.  177;  Wetmore  v.  Board  of  Education,  86 
Mo.  App.  362 ;  Casto  v.  Board  of  Education, 
38  W.  Va.  707  ;  Wintz  v.  Board  of  Education, 
28  \V.  Va.   22T. 

No  Additional  Writing  Required  upon  Exercise 
of  Option  to  Continue  Services  Bej'ond  Stipulated 
Time.  —  Where  the  plaintiii  entered  into  a 
written  contract  of  employment  as  teacher  with 
a  school  district  for  the  term  of  three  months, 
commencing  at  a  stated  time,  with  option  to 
her  to  teach  the  school  year  if  satisfaction  was 
given,  and  she  taught  under  the  contract  the 
three  months,  exercised  the  option  given  her, 
and  remained  in  the  employ  without  objection 
another  three  months,  when  she  was  discharged 
without  good  or  sufficient  cause,  before  the 
close  of  the  school  year,  it  was  held  that  the 
services  rendered  after  the  first  three  months 
were  performed  under  said  contract,  and  a  new 
written  contract  was  not  necessary  to  bind  the 
district  for  the  entire  school  vear,  Wallace  v. 
School    Dist.   No.   27,   50   Neb.  '171. 

Regulation  Requiring  Application  to  Be  in 
Writing.  —  A  regulation  made  by  a  school 
board  requiring  applications  by  teachers  to  be 
made  in  writing  may  be  waived  by  the  board 
by  its  unanimous  election  of  the  applicant  as 
teacher.  Wentherly  v.  Chattanooga,  (Tenn. 
Ch.  1898^  48  S.  W.  Rep.  136. 

2.  Hutchins  V.  School  Dist.  Xo.  1.  T28  Mirb. 
177.  But  see  Cook  v.  Independent  School  Dist.. 
40  Iowa  444.  follozi'i:;!;  Althearn  7'.  Independent 
Dist.,  33  Iowa  T05  :  Williams  v.  Board  of  Edu- 
pation,  45  W.  Va.  199. 

8.  Leland  v.   School   Dist.   No,   28,   jy   Minn. 


469.     But  see  Jones  v.   School   Dist.  No.  47,  8 
Kan.   362. 

4.  Roberts  f.  Clay  City,  102  Ky.  88;  Jackson 
Sciiool    Tp.  V.   Shera,   8    Ind.   App.    330. 

5.  Contracts  Binding  on  Succeeding  Boards.  — 
Silver  V.  Cummings.  7  Wend.  (X.  Y.)  182; 
Wait  z'.  Rciy,  67  N.  Y.  36. 

6.  Under  Statute  in  some  jurisdictions  school 
directors  have  no  power  to  make  contracts  for 
the  employment  of  teachers  for  terms  to  com- 
mence beyond  the  termination  of  the  current 
school  year.  Stevenson  t'.  School  Directors,  87 
111.  255  :  Davis  v.  School  Directors,  92  111.  293  ; 
School  Directors  v.  Hart,  4  111.  App.  224  ;  Jones 
v.  School  Dist.  No.  144,  7  Kan.  App.  372; 
Loomis  V.  Coleman,  51  Mo.  21  ;  Fitch  v.  Smith, 
57  N.  J.  L.  526.  But  in  Jones  v.  School  Dist. 
No.  144,  7  Kan.  App.  372,  it  was  held  that  such 
contract  might  be  ratified  by  the  new   board. 

And  the  same  has  been  held  of  a  contract 
under  which  the  teaching  is  to  be  commenced 
so  near  the  end  of  the  term  of  the  old  board 
as  to  be  an  evident  attempt  on  their  part  to  di- 
vest their  successors  of  the  power  to  select  a 
teacher.     Cross  7'.  School   Directors,  24  111.  App. 

lOI. 

Power  of  Contracting  for  Period  Extending  Be- 
yond Expiration  of  Official  Term  Denied.  — Taylor 
V.  School  Committee.  5  Jones  L.  (50  N.  Car.; 
98.  See  also  Smith  f.  School  Dist.  No.  57,  i 
Penn.    (Del.)    401. 

Contract  Extending  Over  Successors'  Term  for 
Reasonable  Time  Hell  Valid.  —  Chiitenden  r. 
School  Dist.  Xo.  I.  56  \'t.  551.  See  also  Steven- 
son t'.  School   Directors  Dist.  Xo.   i,  87   111.  255. 

Contract  by  Directors  After  Expiration  of  Official 
Term  Ultra  Vires  and  Void.  —  Loomis  v.  Cole- 
m.Tii.   5  I    Mo.   21 . 

Statute  Expressly  Limiting  Period  to  One  Year. 
—  Golden  f.  Public  School  Directors,  34  La. 
Ann.  354. 

7.  Contract  for  Period  Commencing  After  Re- 
organization of  Board  Held  Valid.  —  Reubelt  z'. 
School  Town,  inr,  Tnd.  .iSo  :  Sparta  School  Tp, 
V.  Mendcll.  138  Ind.  iSS;  Tappan  z:  School 
Dist.  X'o.  I.  44  Mich,  soo  :  Cleveland  v.  Amy, 
88  Mich.  374:  Farrell  z:  School-Dist.  No.  2, 
qS  Mich.  43  ;  Taylor  z:  School  Dist.  No.  7,   16 

Volume  XXV. 


Teacher. 


SCHOOLS. 


Compensatioi 


witliout  fraudulent  collusion.*  And  where  the  intention  of  the  old  board  is 
to  forestall  their  successors,  if  the  teacher  is  innocent  of  such  illegal  intent 
the  contract  has  been  held  not  to  be  avoided.* 

d.  Contract  with  De  Facto  Officers.  —  A  teacher's  contract  with 
de  facto  school  officers  is  valid. ^ 

e.  Employment  of  Substitute  by  Teacher.  —  Where  a  teacher  is 
selected  and  employed,  the  contract  is  for  the  personal  services  of  the  teacher 
so  employed,  and  he  cannot  fulfil  the  contract  by  hiring  a  substitute,  how- 
ever competent.* 

3.  Compensation  — «.  Performance  of  Duties  as  Prerequisite  to 
Compensation.  — A  teacher,  to  be  entitled  to  compensation,  must  perform 
the  duties  called  for  in  his  contract  *  or  by  the  provisions  of  the  statute.*' 

b.  Necessity  of  Stipulation  as  to  Compensation.  —  A  contract 
between  a  school  board  and  a  teacher,  in  order  to  support  an  action  for 
damages  for  its  breach,  must  be  definite  and  certain  as  to  the  amount  of 
compensation  to  be  paid.'  But  though  the  compensation  is  neither  fixed  by 
statute  nor  by  contract,  the  teacher  may  recover  on  a  quantuui  meruit  for 
services  actually  rendered.*^ 


Wash.  365;  Splaine  v.  School  Dist.  No.  122,20 
Wash.  74.  See  also  Gates  v.  Scliool  Uist.,  53 
Ark.  468. 

A  Contract  for  a  Period  Extending  Beyond  the 
Term  of  Office  of  the  board  of  trustees  or  direct- 
ors has  been  held  valid  and  binding.  Caldwell 
V.  School  Dist.,  55  Fed.  Rep.  ^yi;  Wilson  v. 
East  Bridgeport  School  Dist.,  36  Conn.  280 ; 
Wait  V.  Ray,  67  N.  Y.  36  ;  Gillis  -'.  Space,  63 
Barb.  (N.  Y.)   177. 

In  Webster  v.  School  Dist.  No.  4,  16  Wis. 
316,  it  was  held  that  such  contract  was  not 
void,  but  was  subject  to  the  power  of  the  dis- 
trict at  its  next  annual  meeting  or  of  the  suc- 
ceeding board  to   terminate  it. 

1.  Wait  V.  Ray,  67  N.  Y.  36. 

2.  Milford  v.  Zeigler,    i    Ind.   App.    138. 

3.  Contract  with  De  Facto  Officers.  —  Milford 
V.  Zeigler.  i  Ind.  App.  138;  Milford  v.  Powner, 
126  Ind.  528;  Lacy  v.  Swango,  (Ky.  1900)  57 
S.  W.  Rep.  473 ;  Woodbury  v.  Knox,  74  Me. 
462  ;  Whitman  v.  Owen,  76  Miss.  783  ;  Barrett 
V.  Sayer,  58  Hun  (N.  Y.)  608,  12  N.  Y.  Supp. 
170;  O'Neil  V.  Battle  ( Supm.  Ct.  Gen.  T.)  15 
X.  Y.  Supp.  818;  De  Wolf  v.  Watterson,  35 
Hun  (N.  Y.)  III.  Compare  Genesee  Tp.  Inde- 
pendent School  Dist.  V.  McDonald,  98  Pa.  St. 
444;  White  V.  School-Dist.,  (Pa.  1887)  8  Atl. 
Rep.  443- 

4.  School   Directors  r.  Hudson,  88  111.  563. 

6.  Compensation.  —  Owen  School  Tp.  v.  Hay, 
107  Ind.  351  ;  Allegany  County  School  Com'rs 
V.   Adams,   43    Md.   340. 

Failure  for  Good  Reason  to  Serve  Entire  Term. 
—  In  Mason  v.  School  Dist.  No.  14,  20  Vt. 
487,  it  was  held  that  the  closing  of  school  a 
few  days  before  the  expiration  of  the  time 
agreed  upon  by  the  parties,  on  account  of  sick- 
ness in  the  teacher's  family,  would  not  deprive 
him  of  the  right  to  recover  for  the  time  he 
actually  served  the  district,  it  appearing  that 
the  prudential  committee  was  satisfied  with  the 
rc^somlileness   of   the   excuse. 

School  District  and  Not  Township  Held  Liable 
for  Teacher's  Compensation.  —  Greensboro  Tp.  v. 
Cook,  58  Ind.  130.  See  also  Harrison  Tp.  v. 
McGregor,   67    Ind.    380. 

6.  Owen  School  Tp.  v.  Hay,  107  Ind.  351; 
County  School  Com'rs  7-.  Adams,  43  Md.  349. 


Keeping     Register     and    Making     Reports.  — 

School  Directors  v.  Greenville  First  Nat.  Bank, 
3  111.  App.  349;  Owen  School  Tp.  v.  Hay,  107 
Ind.  351  ;  County  School  Com'rs  v.  Adams,  43 
Md.  349 ;  Jewell  v.  Abington,  2  Allen  (Mass.) 
592;  Jay  V.  School  Dist.  No.  i,  24  Mont.  219; 
School  Dist.  V.  Tuttle,  26  N.  H.  470.  Compare 
Carver  v.  School  Dist.  No.  6,  113  Mich. 
5-M. 

In  School  Directors  v.  Sprague,  78  111.  App. 
390.  it  was  held  sufficient  if  a  teacher  con- 
cluded the  term  and  offered  and  delivered  the 
schedule  and  register  to  the  clerk  of  the  board, 
but   the  latter   refused   to   receive  them. 

The  keeping  of  a  schedule  will  not  be  required 
where  it  is  shown  that  the  unauthorized  act  of 
the  board  in  discharging  the  teacher  has  ren- 
dered it  impossible.  School  Directors  v.  Red- 
dick,  77  111.  628 ;  Rudy  v.  School  Dist..  30  Mo. 
App.  113;  Scott  V.  School  Dist.,  46  Vt.  452. 
See  also  Cobb  v.  School  Dist.  No.  i,  63  Vt. 
647. 

Noncompliance  with  Regulation  of  School  Board. 
—  It  has  been  held  that  the  pay  of  the  teacher 
of  a  public  school  cannot  be  withheld  for  non- 
compliance with  a  regulation  made  by  the 
school  board  during  his  employment,  if  he  has 
not  been  properly  notified  of  such  regulation. 
Perkins  v.  School  Dist.  Number  2,  61  Mo.  App. 
5' "• 

Admission  of  Children  Excluded  by  Law.  — 
Chalmers  7\   Stewart.    '  1    Ohio   386. 

Right  to  Compensation  Not  Defeated  by  Wrong- 
ful Exclusion  of  Pupil  under  Direction  of  Local 
Directors.  —  State  t'.   Blain.  36  Ohio  St.  429. 

7.  Atkins  f.  Van  Buren  School  Tp.,  77  Ind. 
447:  Fairplay  School  Tp.  7\  O'Neal,  127  Ind. 
95  ;  Jackson  School  Tp.  v.  Grimes,  24  Ind.  App. 

Statute  Requiring  Contract  to  Fix  Compensa- 
tion. —  Mingo  V.  (^"olored  Common-School  Dist. 
No.  A.   (Ky.'ioo2^   68  S.  W.  Rep.  481. 

Evidence  as  to  Compensation  Paid  During  Pre- 
vious Year  Inadmissible.  —  Jackson  School  Tp. 
?•.  Grimes.  Ji  Ind.  App.  331. 

8.  Recovery  on  Quantum  Meruit. —  Miahle  v. 
Fournet.  13  La.  Ann.  607:  Offut  v.  Bourgeois, 
16  La.  Ann.  163  ;  Tyler  v.  Tualatin  Academy,  14 
Oregon  485. 

Volume  XXV. 


Teacher.  SCHOOLS.  Termination  of  Employment. 

C.  ClRCUMSTAXCES  TO  Re  CONSIDERED  IN  REDUCTION  —  (l)  Closing 
School  on  Account  of  Prevalence  of  Epidemic.  —  In  the  absence  of  express 
stipulation,*  no  deduction  will  be  made  from  the  full  compensation  stipulated 
to  be  paid  a  teacher,  by  reason  of  the  fact  that  for  a  time  the  school  was 
closed  by  the  action  of  the  school  committee,  or  other  proper  officer,  because 
of  the  prevalence  of  a  contagious  disease  in  the  community,  the  closing  not 
being  due  to  any  cause  which  made  it  impossible  for  the  school  to  be  kept 
open,  especially  if  the  teacher,  at  the  request  of  the  committee,  kept  himself 
in  readiness  to  resume  his  work.*'^ 

(2)  Destruction  of  School  Building.  —  So  in  the  absence  of  any  stipulation 
in  the  contract  to  the  contrary,-**  no  deduction  will  be  made  from  a  teacher's 
salary  because  of  the  destruction  of  the  school  building  by  fire  or  other  such 
cause,*  and  this,  it  has  been  held,  though  the  board  is  unable  to  get  another 
house.* 

(3)  Closing  on  Account  of  Diminution  of  Pupils.  —  Where  a  teacher  enters 
into  a  contract  of  employment  with  a  school  board,  but  by  reason  of  the 
diminution  in  the  number  of  pupils  he  is  directed  not  to  begin  school,  but  to 
hold  himself  in  readiness  therefor,  he  is  in  a  legal  sense  in  the  service  of  the 
school  and  entitled  to  a  salary.'' 

(4)  Holidays.  —  No  deduction  in  a  teacher's  salary  will  be  allowed  for 
recognized  holidays.'' 

d.  Mandamus  to  Compel  Payment  of  Salary.  —  The  question  whether 
mandamus  is  a  proper  remedy  to  compel  payment  of  a  public  school  teacher's 
salary  will  be  found  discussed  elsewhere  in  this  work.*^ 

e.  Pensions.  —  In  some  jurisdictions  provision  has  been  made  by  statute 
for  the  pensioning  of  teachers  under  specified  conditions.® 

4.  Termination  of  Employment  —a  Discharge —  (i)  Discharge  for  Good 
Cause.  —  A  teacher  may,  as  a  general  rule,  be  discharged  by  the  proper 
authorities  for  good  and  sufficient  cause,*®  either  under  or  apart  from  any 
express  statutory  provision  to  this  effect.**    Thus,  a  teacher  may  be  dismissed 

1.  Eight  to  Make  Deduction  Reserved  in  Con-  32>  Am.  Rep.  421  ;  Holloway  v.  School  Dist.  No. 
tract.  — Goodyear  f.  School  Dist.  No.  5,  17  Ore-        Nine,  62  Mich.  153. 

gonsi;;  Gilroy  !».  School  Dist.  No.  5,  17  Oregon  8.   See  the  title  M.\ndamus.   vol.    19,   p.   798. 

5--.  And  see  the  following  cases:    Pierce  v.  Beck,  6r 

But  the  mere  fact  that  the  contract  is  to  pay  Ga.  413;  Cheney  v.  Newton,  67  Ga.  477;  Rogers 

the   teacher    for   services    actually   rendered,    or  v.    People,   68    111.    154;    Martin   v.    Elwood,    35 

for  the  time  actually  occupied,   will- not  justify  Minn.   309;    Case   v.   Wresler,   4    Ohio   St.    561; 

a  deduction.     Charlestown   School  Tp.  v.   Hay,  Howard  v.   Bamford,  3   Oregon  566.     See   also 

74  Ind.  127:  McKay  f.  Barnctt,  21  Utah  239.  Cotton  -■.  Reed,  20  111.  606;   Matter  of  Gleese. 

2.  Closing  School  on  Account  of  Epidemic  No  50  N.  Y.  Super.  Ct.  473. 

Ground  for  Deduction.  —  Carthage   f.    Ciray,    10  9.   Pensioning    Teachers.  —  People  z/.  Haugh- 

Ind.   App.   4j8:    Dewey   v.   Union    School    Dist.,  ran,  55   X.  \'.  App.   Div.    118;   People  v.  Platts- 

43  Mich.  480,  38  Am.  Rep.  206:  Libby  v.  Doug-  burgh.   (Supiii.   Ct.   Spec.   T.)    29   Misc.   (N.    Y.) 

las,    175    Mass.    128.     See  Randolph  v.   Sanders,  410:  St.Tte  f.   Huhhanl.  12  Ohio  Cir.  Dec.  87. 

22   Tex.    Civ.   App.   331.     See    also    Devine   v.  Regulation  of  School  Board  Making  Provision 

McBride,   (Tex.  Civ.  App.  1896)  35  S.  \Y.  Rep.  for   Pensioning    Teachers    Held  Void. —  State    -■. 

317.  Ro.i^cTS.  S;   .Minn.   i,;(.. 

3.  See  Corn  v.  Board  of  Education,  39  111.  10.  Statutory  Authority  to  Discharge  for  Cause. 
.\pp.  446;  Hall  V.  School  Dist.  Number  Ten,  24  — Board  of  Education  v.  Stotlar,  95  III.  App. 
Mo.  App.  213.  250;  Robinson  v.  School  Directors,  96  111.  App. 

4.  Destruction  of  School  Building  No  Ground  for  604. 

Deduction.  —  School  Directors  v.  Crews,  23   111.  11.  Bays  7'.  State,  6  Neb.  167  :  Tripp?'.  School 

App.  367:  Smith  V.  School-Dist.  No.  2,  69  Mich.  Dist.,  50  Wis.  657.     See  also  Crawfordsville  v. 

589;  Cashen  v.  School  Dist.  No.  12,  50  Vt.  30:  Hays.  42  Ind.  200. 

Charlestown  School   Tp.  v.   Hay,    74  Ind.    127.  Violation   of  Rule   Requiring   Teachers   to   Be 

Compare  Hall  v.  School  Dist.  Number  Ten,  24  Vaccinated.  —  I.ynd.:Il  v.  High   School  Commit- 

Mo.  App.  213.  tee.   I.)    Pa.  SiM  cr.   Ct.  23.2. 

6.  Corn  v.  Board  of  Education,  39  111.   App.  Rescission    for    Fraudulent    Representation.  — 

-1  16.  Where  hy  the  terms  of  the  contract  it  is  a  con- 

6.  Singleton  v.  .-Austin,  (Tex.  Civ.  .A.pp.  looi)  dition  of  the  teacher's  employment  that  she  is 
65  S.  \\'.  Rep.  686.  See  also  Bromley  z'.  School  unmarried  and  will  remain  so  for  a  limited 
Dist.  No.  5,  47  Vt.  381.  time,   a  breach   of  this  condition   will   justify  a 

7.  School  Dist.  No.  4  v.  Gage,  39  Mich.  484,  rescission    of  the   contract   on   the   part  of   the 


Teacher. 


SCHOOLS. 


Termination  of  Employment. 


for  incompetency  or  neglect  of  duty,*  or  immoral  conduct,-  notwithstanding 
that  his  employment  was  for  a  time  certain.' 

(2)  Discharge  Without  Cause  —  (a)  In  General.  —  But  in  the  absence  of  agree- 
ment or  statutory  provision  to  the  contrary,  the  school  trustees  or  directors 
have  no  power  to  discharge  a  teacher  before  the  expiration  of  the  term  of  his 
contract  without  good  cause  shown,'*  at  least  so  as  to  deprive  the  teacher  of 
his  remedy  for  the  breach  of  contract.*  And  the  same  rule  has  been  applied 
to  the  removal  of  a  teacher  without  his  consent  from  a  higher  to  a  lower 
grade."  Under  statute  in  some  jurisdictions,  however,  the  power  of  summary 
removal  of  a  teacher  is  vested  in  the  board,  and  this  power  is  discretionary 
and  its  exercise  in  a  given  case  cannot  be  inquired  into  by  the  courts.' 

(b)  Reservation  of  Right  to  Discharge  at  Pleasure.  —  Sometimes,  by  express  stipu- 
lation in  the  contract,  the  directors  reserve  the  right  to  discharge  the 
teacher  at  their  pleasure,  or  whenever  he  fails  to  give  satisfaction  to  the 
board,  and  such  reservations  have  been  held  by  some  authorities  to  be  opera- 
tive and  binding  so  long  as  the  directors  act  honestly  and  in  good  faith,  and 
this  though  in  order  to  justify  a  dismissal  under  the  statute,  apart  from  con- 
tract, the  cause  must  be  shown  to  be  sufficient.*     On  the  other  hand,  such 


school  board.     Guilford   School  Tp.  v.  Roberts, 
28  Ind.  App.  355. 

Imposition  of  Fines.  —  A  board  of  education 
has  no  right  to  impose  pecuniary  fines  on  teach- 
ers for  any  misconduct  or  dereliction,  in  the 
absence  of  any  statutory  authority  or  agreement, 
express  or  implied,  on  the  i>art  of  the  teacher. 
People  7'.  Board  of  h-ducation.   14?  N.  Y.  62. 

1.  Dismissal  for  Incompetency  or  Neglect  of 
Duty. —  School  Dist.  v.  Maury,  53  Ark.  471; 
School  Directors  v.  Reddick,  77  111.  6j8  ;  School 
Directors  v.  Hudson,  88  111.  563 ;  Crawfords- 
ville  V.  Hays,  42  Ind.  200  ;  School  Dist.  No.  23 
V.  McCoy,  30  Kan.  268,  46  Am.  Rep.  92 ;  Bays 
V.  State,  6  Neb.  167  ;  People  v.  Board  of  Educa- 
tion, 3  Hun  (N.  Y.)  178;  Sub-school  Dist.  No.  7 
V.  Burton,  26  Ohio  St.  421  ;  Holden  v.  Shrews- 
bury School  Dist.  No.  10,  38  Vt.  529.  See  also 
Scott  V.  Joint  School  Dist.  No.  16.  51   ^Vis.  554. 

Tardiness  in  Going  to  School.  —  School  Direct- 
ors f.  Birch,  93  111.  .'\pp.  499. 

Bad  Temper.  —  Rol)inson  r.  School  Directors, 
96  111.  .App.  604. 

Refusal  to  Take  Back  Suspended  Pupil  as 
Directed  by  Board.  —  Parker  :■.  School  Dist.  No. 
38.  T  I.ca  (  I  cnn. )   525. 

Temporary  Substitution  of  Another  Teacher.  — 
Where  a  school  teacher  leaves  lur  place  in  the 
school,  placing  a  substitute  in  her  stead  to  teach, 
and  fails  to  resume  her  place  when  requested 
by  the  principal  having  charge  of  the  school, 
and  when  asked  for  an  explanation  by  the  di- 
rectors, gives  none,  except  that  she  has  fur- 
nished a  competent  substitute  and  will  resume 
as  soon  as  vacation  is  over,  this  will  be  good 
cause  for  the  discharge  by  the  directors  of  the 
teacher  thus  leaving  her  employment.  School 
Directors  v.  Hudson,  88  111.  563. 

Inability  to  Manage  Pupils. —  A  failure  to  man- 
age and  govern  the  school  has  been  held  to  con- 
stitute sufficient  ground  for  the  dismissal  of  a 
teacher,  although  he  was  not  unfaithful  in 
efforts  to  discharge  the  duties  assumed.  East- 
man T'.  District  Tp..  21  Iowa  500. 

2.  Discharge  for  Immoral  Conduct.  —  School 
Dist.  V.  Maury.  53  .\rV.  471  :  Tinglev  v.  Vaughn, 
17  111.  App.  347:  McLellan  r.  St.  Louis  Public 
Schools,  15  Mo.  App.  362. 

25  C.  of  L.  —2 


3.  School  Directors  v.  Reddick,  77  111.  628; 
Bays  V.  State.  6  Neb.  167. 

4.  Discharge  Without  Cause.  —  School  Dist. 
No.  3  z\  Hale,  15  Colo.  367;  School  Dist.  No. 
26  V.  McComb,  18  Colo.  240;  School  Dist.  Z'. 
Stone,  14  Colo.  App.  211  ;  Ewing  v.  School  Di- 
rectors, 2  111.  App.  458  ;  Crawfordsville  v.  Hays, 
42  Ind.  200  ;  Milford  v.  Zeigler,  i  Ind.  App.  138  ; 
Searsmont  v.  Farwell,  3  Me.  450 ;  McCutchen 
V.  Windsor,  55  Mo.  153;  Wallace  '•.  School  Dist. 
No.  27,  50  Neb.  171,  distinguishing  Jones  v. 
Nebraska  City,  i  Neb.  176:  Bays  v.  State,  6 
Neb.  167:  Scott  V.  Joint  School  Dist.  No.  16, 
51   Wis.  554. 

Dismissal  from  Private  Chartered  Institution.  — 
Hall-Moody  Institute  f.  Copass,  108  Tenn.  582. 

Enjoining  Teacher's  Possession.  —  It  has  been 
held  that  while  school  directors  have  the  right 
to  the  possession  of  the  school  property,  their 
right  is  not  unlimited  and  arbitrary,  and  hence, 
if  they  have  without  cause  dismissed  a  teacher, 
they  will  not  be  entitled  to  an  injunction  against 
the  teacher  for  the  purpose  of  ousting  him  of 
possession.  Thompson  Z'.  Gibbs,  97  Tenn. 
489. 

5.  Finch  v.  Cleveland,  10  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  290. 
See  also  Swartwood  v.  Walbridge,  57  Hun  (N. 
Y.)  34.  And  see  Board  of  Regents  v.  Mudge, 
21  Kan.  222. 

But  a  different  rule  has  been  applied  under  a 
statute  giving  to  a  particular  board  the  power 
of  removal  at  pleasure.  Dunavan  v.  Board  of 
Education,  47  Hun   (N.  Y.)    13. 

6.  Kennedy  v.  Board  of  Education,  82  Cal. 
483.     See  also  Matter  of  Gleese,  sp  N.  Y.  Super. 

Ct.  473. 

7.  Knowles  v.  Boston,  12  Gray  (Mass.)  339; 
Wood  V.  Medfield,  123  Mass.  545. 

Power  to  Remove  Normal  School  Teachers  at 
Pleasure.  —  Gillan  v.  Board  of  Regents,  88 
Wis.  7. 

8.  Reservation  in  Contract  of  Right  to  Dis- 
charge at  Pleasure, —  School  Directors  v.  Ew- 
ington.  j6  111.  .\pp.  379;  Olney  School  Dist.  v. 
Christy,  81  111.  App.  304;  Brown  v.  School 
Dist.  No.  41,  I  Kan.  App.  530;  School  Dist. 
-'.  Colvin,  10  Kan.  283:  Armstrong  v.  Union 
School-Dist.   No.    i,    28    Kan.   345. 

r  Volume  XXV. 


Teacher. 


SCHOOLS. 


Termiuation  of  Employment. 


reservations  have  been  held  to  be  invalid  as  against  public  policy.' 

(3)  Notice  and  Hearing.  —  It  has  been  held  in  some  cases  that  a  teacher 
cannot  be  dismissed  before  the  expiration  of  his  term,  except  upon  the  proper 
notice  and  hearing.''  On  the  other  hand,  it  has  been  held  that  a  trial  with  the 
formality  and  strictness  that   belong  to  the  courts  of  justice  is  not   required.' 

(4)  By  Whom  Discharge  May  Be  Made  —  (a)  In  General.  —  Power  to  dismiss 
teachers  is  generally  by  express  statutory  provision  vested  in  designated  officers, 
usually  local  boards  of  trustees  or  directors."*     Sometimes,  however,  this  power 


Reservation  of  Right  to  Dismiss  Teacher  in  Case 
of  Dissatisfaction  on  Part  of  School  District  Held 
Valid.  —  Richardson  v.  School  IJist.  No.  10,38 
Vt.  60J. 

Regulations  of  Board  as  Part  of  Contract. — 
It  has  been  held  that  a  rule  of  a  school  board 
that  all  teachers  were  employed  at  the  pleasure 
of  the  board  was  one  whicli  it  was  competent 
and  proper  for  the  school  board  to  pass,  and  that 
by  operation  of  law  it  incorporated  itself  into 
and  became  a  part  of  the  contract,  of  which  a 
teacher  was  bound  at  his  risk  to  take  notice. 
Weatherly  v.  Chattanooga,  (Tenn.  Ch.  1898) 
48  S.  \V.  Rep.  136.  Compare  School  Dist.  No. 
3  V.  Hale,   IS  Colo.  367. 

Contract  Held  Not  to  Justify  Removal  at  Pleas- 
ure.—  Where  the  board  of  education  of  a  city 
employed  a  teacher  for  the  ensuing  school 
year,  "  unless  sooner  removed  by  vote  of  the 
board,"  it  was  held  that  the  words  "  unless 
sooner  removed  by  vote  of  the  board "  could 
not  be  construed  to  mean  that  the  teacher  might 
be  removed  without  cause.  Board  of  Education 
r.  Cook.  3   Kan.  App.   269. 

Stipulation  Held  Not  to  Justify  Removal  Before 
Commencement  of  Service.  —  Under  a  contract 
with  a  teacher  making  liis  appointment  subject 
to  the  right  of  the  board  to  remove  him  from 
the  position  at  any  time  upon  two  weeks'  notice, 
it  has  been  held  that  a  repudiation  of  the  con- 
tract, summarily  and  without  cause,  before  the 
commencement  of  the  service  was  not  justified 
although  the  required  notice  was  given.  School 
City  V.   Bloom,    17    Ind.  App.   461. 

Failure  to  Observe  Proper  Formalities.  — 
Where  there  was  an  agreement  between  the 
school  trustees  and  a  teacher,  giving  to  either 
party  the  right  to  terminate  the  employment  on 
one  month's  notice,  it  was  held  that  the  employ- 
ment was  not  terminated  where  the  notice  of 
the  meeting  at  which  the  resolution  dismissing 
the  teacher  was  passed  did  not  inform  the  mem- 
bers to  whom  it  was  given  that  the  matter  of  de- 
termining the  contract  with  the  teacher  was  to 
be  considered,  and  as  a  consequence  some  of 
the  members  had  no  knowledge  thereof.  Green- 
lees  V.  Picton  Public  School  Board,  2  Ont.  L. 
Rep.  387. 

1.  Under  Statute  Enumerating  Causes  of  Dis- 
missal.—  [n  Tliompson  v.  Cibbs,  97  Tenn.  489, 
it  was  held  that  a  statement  indorsed  by  the 
board  on  a  contract  unlimited  on  its  face,  the 
regular  form  of  contract  provided  by  the  state 
superintendent,  to  the  effect  that  the  board  had 
the  right  to  determine  the  contract  during  the 
regular  scholastic  year  was  illegal  and  void  as 
being  against  public  policy  and  an  evasion  of 
the  statute,  which  enumerated  the  causes  for 
which  a  dismissal  might  be  had. 

Where  No  Power  of  Dismissal  Is  Expressly  Con- 
fered.     —  Tripp  v.   School   Dist.,  50   Wis.  659. 


18 


2.  Necessity  of  Notice  and  Hearing.  —  School 

Dist.  No.  j6  v.  RlcComb,  18  Colo.  240;  School 
Dist.  No.  25  V.  Stone,  14  Colo.  App.  211; 
School  City  v.  Bloom,  17  Ind.  App.  461  ;  Rumble 
V.  Barker,  27  Ind.  App.  69 ;  Benson  v.  District 
Tp.,  100  Iowa  328;  White  v.  Wohlenberg,  113 
Iowa  236 ;  Edinboro  Normal  School  v.  Cooper, 
150  Pa.  St.  78;  Butcher  v.  Charles,  95  Tenn. 
532;  Morley  v.  Power,  10  Lea  (Tenn.)  219,  5 
Lea  (Tenn.)  691.  See  also  HuU  v.  Independent 
School  Dist.,  82  Iowa  686  ;  Murdoch  v.  Phillips 
Academy,    12  Pick.   (Mass.)    244. 

Waiver  of  Want  of  Notice  by  Appearance.  — 
Kellison  v.  School  Dist.  No.   i,  20  Mont.  153. 

Dismissal  After  Prior  Abortive  Attempt.  — •  An 
abortive  attempt  at  a  trial,  wliere  no  jurisdic- 
tion of  the  teacher  was  had  because  of  his  want 
of  notice,  will  not  prevent  a  subsequent  lawful 
liearing  and  judgment,  and  if  by  an  unwar- 
ranted writ  of  injunction  a  teacher  prevents  the 
board  from  having  such  hearing  before  the  con- 
tract time  has  expired,  the  hearing  will  relate 
back  to  the  time  when  but  for  the  plaintiffs' 
unlawful  act  it  would  have  been  liad.  White  i\ 
Wohlenberg,    113   Iowa   236. 

Under  the  General  School  Laws  of  New  York 
providing  that  no  teacher  sliall  be  dismissed  in 
the  course  of  a  term  of  eniploynicnt  except  for 
reasons  which,  if  appealed  to  the  superintendent 
of  public  instruction,  shall  be  held  to  be  suffi- 
cient cause  for  such  dismissal,  it  has  been  held 
that  a  teacher  is  not  entitled  to  a  trial  on 
charges  before  dismissal  by  the  board.  Riden- 
our  V.  Board  of  Education,  (Supm.  Ct.  Spec. 
T.)  IS  Misc.  (N.  Y.)  418.  See  also  People  v. 
Board  of  Education,  69  Hun  (N.  Y.)  212. 
affirmed  142  N.  Y.  627;  People  v.  Board  of 
Education,  52  N.  Y.  Super.  Ct.  520;  Dunavan 
V.   Board  of   Education.  47    Hun    (N.   Y.)    13. 

Statute  Requiring  Three-fourths  Vote  for  Re- 
moval. —  Peo]ile  V.  Board  nf  Education,  6g 
Hun  (N.  Y.)  212  :  People  v.  Hoard  of  Educa- 
tion,   (Supm.   Ct.  Tr.  T.)    32    Misc.    (  N.   Y.)    63. 

Affirmative  Vote  of  Maiority  Required.  —  Keat- 
ing 7'.  Neary.  9  Kulj)  (Pa.)  421.  is  Montg.  Co. 
Re;..    (  Pa.)  "141. 

Entry  on  Minutes  of  Names  of  Persons  Voting 
Held  Essential.  —  Com.  v.  Risser,  3  Pa.  Super. 
Ct.    196. 

Notice  Must  Be  Reasonably  Specific.  —  Morley 
-'.    Power,    10  Lea   (Tenn.)    219- 

3.  School  Dist.  No.  27,  v.  McCoy,  30  Kan.  268, 
46  Am.  Rep.  92.  See  also  Kirkpatrick  v.  Inde- 
pendent School  Dist.,  53  Iowa  587  ;  Armstrongs. 
Union  School  Dist.  No.  1,  28  Kan.  345:  People 
V.  Board  of  Education.  3  Hun  (N.  Y.)  iSi. 
Compare  Morley  z'.  Power,  5  Lea  (Tenn.)  691  ; 
Thompson  v.  Gibbs,  97   Tenn.   489. 

4.  See  the  statutes  of  the  various  states. 
Dismissal  by  Trustees  upon  Petition  of  Voters.  — 

Rumble  v.  Barker,   27  Ind.   Ajip.  69. 

Volume  XXV. 


Teacher. 


SCHOOLS. 


Termination  of  Employment. 


is  to  be  exercised,  under  the  statute,  in  conjunction  with  the  county  superin- 
tendent or  other  officer.'  In  the  absence  of  an  express  statutory  provision, 
the  right  to  remove  public  school  teachers  is,  in  general,  to  be  exercised  by 
the  authority  empowered  to  employ  thcm.~ 

(b)  Whether  Power  of  Revoking  License  Is  Exclusive.  —  In  Michigan  it  has  been  held 
that  a  district  school  board  cannot  legally  discharge  a  teacher  for  incompe- 
tency, in  view  of  the  fact  that  the  power  of  suspendiiig  or  revoking  a  teacher's 
certificate  for  such  cause  is  vested  in  a  board  of  examiners.^  And  the  Mis- 
souri courts  have  gone  to  the  extreme  length  of  holding  that  the  school  board 
had  no  power  to  discharge  a  teacher  for  cruel  treatment  and  profane  and 
abusive  language  used  towards  pupils,  on  the  ground  that  such  treatment  and 
language  were  within  the  definition  of  "  incompetency  or  immorality  "  as  em- 
ployed in  the  statute  giving  to  the  county  school  commissioner  power  to  revoke 
licenses  for  such  cause.*  But  in  Arkansas  it  has  been  held  that  the  authority 
conferred  upon  the  commissioner  to  revoke  the  license  of  a  school  teacher  for 
immorality  or  incompetency  or  "  for  any  other  adequate  cause"  is  not  exclu- 
sive of  the  right  of  the  board  of  directors  to  terminate  a  contract  with  a 
teacher  for  incompetency  or  gross  immorality.* 

(5)  Remedies  for  Wrongful  Discharge  —  (a)  Action  for  Damages  —  aa.  In  Gkneral. 
—  A  school  teacher  engaged  for  a  specified  term  who  is  discharged  without 
cause  may  recover  compensation  therefor  in  an  action  for  the  breach  of  con- 
tract.® Where  a  teacher  has  been  removed  under  a  statute  vesting  in  the 
board  of  trustees  the  power  of  removal  at  pleasure,  and  notice  thereof  has 
been  received  by  him,  his  right  to  any  further  salary  or  compensation  is  ter- 
minated.' And,  indeed,  under  statute  in  Pennsylvania,  specifying  the  causes 
for  w'hich  the  board  of  directors  has  power  to  dismiss  a  teacher,  namely, 
incompetency,   cruelty,  negligence,  or  immorality,  it  has  been   held  that  the 


1.  Armstrong  v.  Union  School  Dist.  No.  i, 
28  Kan.  345  ;  School  Dist.  No.  23,  v.  McCoy,  30 
Kan.  268,  46  Am.  Rep.  92.  See  also  Matter  of 
Gleese,   50   N.    Y.   Super.   Ct.  473. 

Principals  of  Normal  School  Removable  by  Con- 
current Act  of  Local  Board  and  Superintendent  of 
Public  Instruction. — People  v.  Hyde,  89  N.  Y. 
1 1. 

Agreement  Vesting  Power  of  Dismissal  in  Board 
Alone  Held  Valid.  —  Armstrong  v.  Lnion  School 
Dist.  No.  1,  28  Kan.  345.  But  see  People  v. 
Hyde,  89  N.  Y.   18. 

2.  People  V.  Hyde,  89  N.  Y.  11;  Bays  v.  State, 
6  Neb.  167;  Wallace  v.  School  Dist.  No.  27,  50 
Neb.  171. 

3.  Carver  v.  School  Dist.  No.  6,  113  Mich. 
524- 

4.  Arnold  v.  School  Dist.,  78  Mo.  226.  See 
also  Frazier  v.  School  Dist.  Number  i,  24  Mo. 
App.  250. 

5.  School  Dist.  v.  Maury,  53  Ark.  471.  See 
also  Tripp  v.   School   Dist.,   50  Wis.   630. 

6.  Action  for  Damages  for  Wrongful  Discharge. 
—  School  DiM.  Xo.  3  '■■  Hale.  13  Colo.  367; 
Ewing  V.  School  Directors  Dist.  No.  3,  2  111. 
App.  458 ;  Arnold  v.  School  Dist..  78  Mo.  226 ; 
Armstrong  v.  School  Dist.,  19  Mo.  App.  462; 
Wallace  v.  School  Dist.  No.  27,  50  Neb.  171; 
Swartwood  v.  Walbridge,  57  Hun  (N.  Y.) 
33;  Hall-Moody  Institute  7'.  Copass,  108  Tenn. 
582;  Richardson  v.  School  Dist.  No.  10,  38 
Vt.  602;  Tripp  7'.  School  Dist.,  50  Wis.  651; 
Scott  7'.  Joint  School  Dist.  No.  16,  51  Wis. 
554. 

Effect  of  Acceptance  of  Part  Payment.  —  Where, 
however,  upon   an   illegal  discharge  the  teacher 


accepts  a  half  month's  salary  and  voluntarily 
gives  up  the  school,  it  has  been  held  that  he  can- 
not recover.  Frazier  v.  School  Dist.  Number  i, 
24  Mo.  App.  250.  Compare  Richardson  v. 
School  Dist.  No.  10,  38  Vt.  602. 

Recovery  for  Services  Between  Date  of  Dismissal 
and  Reinstatement.  —  Where  from  the  evi- 
dence adduced  at  the  hearing  a  teacher  is  dis- 
missed for  sufficient  cause,  but  is  afterwards 
reinstated  on  new  evidence,  he  will  not  be  en- 
titled to  recover  for  any  services  rendered  be- 
tween the  time  of  the  first  and  the  second 
adjudications.  Kellison  v.  School  Dist.  No.  i, 
20    Mont.    153. 

Liability  of  Private  Chartered  Institution  for 
Breach  of  Contract. —  Hall-Moody  Institute  v. 
Copass,    108    Tenn.    582. 

Action  Not  Barred  by  Prior  Denial  of  Man- 
damus. —  Steinson  t'.  Board  of  Education,  165 
N.   Y.  431. 

Dispossession  of  Schoolhouse.  —  It  has  been 
held  that  the  remedy  of  a  teacher,  if  discharged 
without  cause,  is  not  to  force  an  entrance  into 
the  schoolhouse  in  order  to  resume  his  duties 
as  teacher,  but  to  tender  a  continuance  of  his 
services  and  recover  compensation  as  if  those 
services  had  been  actually  rendered  during  the 
term  of  his  employment,  and  that  if  he  mis- 
takes his  remedy,  the  school  board  is  justified 
in  resisting  force  by  force,  and  in  an  action  for 
damages  is  liable  only  for  excess  of  force  em- 
ployed. Swartwood  v.  Walbridge,  57  Hun  (N. 
Y.)  33. 

7.  Gillan  v.  Board  of  Regents.  88  Wis.  7: 
Knowles  7'.  Boston.  12  Gray  (Mass.)  339; 
Wood  V.  Medfield,    123   Mass.   545. 

Volume  XXV. 


Teacher.  SCHOOLS.  termination  of  Employment. 

action  of  the  board  in  dismissing  a  teacher  was  final  and  conclusive,  and  no 
recovery  could  be  had  for  a  breach  of  contract,  unless  the  board  could  be  shown 
to  have  acted  corruptly  or  in  bad  faith,  or  to  have  clearly  abused  its  powers.* 

bb.  Measure  ok  Damages.  —  The  measure  of  damages  ordinarily  is  the  amount 
of  the  stipulated  wages,  though  the  recovery  is  always  subject  to  mitigation 
by  proof  either  of  earnings  or  the  possibility  of  earnings.*  The  rule  requiring 
the  seeking  or  acceptance  of  other  employment  by  a  party  to  a  contract  for 
employment  which  has  been  rescinded  by  the  employer  does  not  require  that 
the  former  should  seek  or  accept  service  of  a  different  character  or  grade,^  or 
surrender  a  contract  for  a  certain  and  definite  term  for  one  containing  con- 
ditions making  it  liable  to  discontinuance  at  any  time,*  or  generally  accept  an 
offer  which  will  result  in  a  modification  of  the  original  contract.* 

cc.  Statutory  Appeal  as  Prerequisite.  —  Under  statutes  giving  a  right  of  appeal 
to  the  county  or  state  superintendent  in  cases  of  dismissal,  it  has  been  held 
that  a  teacher  of  a  public  school,  discharged  without  cause,  cannot  maintain 
a  suit  against  the  trustees  of  the  district  for  damages  on  his  contract  to  teach 
when  he  had  taken  no  steps  to  reinstate  himself  as  a  teacher  by  appeal  from 
their  act  in  discharging  him." 

Discharge  Without  Hearing.  —  But  under  statute  in  Iowa  it  has  been  held  that 
where  a  teacher  is  discharged  without  the  hearing  contemplated  by  statute, 
the  refusal  to  allow  the  teacher  to  render  services  being  based  on  the  ground 
of  the  alleged  illegality  of  the  contract,  an  action  for  breach  of  contract  may 
be  maintained  without  taking  any  appeal  to  the  county  superintendent.' 

(bj  Mandamus.  —  A  contract  to  teach  in  the  common  or  free  schools  is,  as  a 
general  rule,  one  of  employment,  and  the  teacher  is  not  a  public  officer.**  And 
hence  the  rule  has  been  laid  down  that  for  any  violation  of  the  rights  of  a 
teacher  under  an  existing  contract  there  exists  an  adequate  remedy  by  action 
to  recover   damages  for  breach  of   the  contract,  and  mandamus  will  not  lie.* 

(c)  Injunction,  —  A  board  of  trustees  cannot  be  enjoined  from  violating  its 
contract    by    discharging   a   teacher   and    substituting  another    in  his  place, 

1.  Whitehead     v.     North     Huntingdon     Tp.       Held  Unnecessary.  —  Fa rrell  v.  School-Dist.  No. 
School   Dist.,    145   Pa.   St.  418;   McCrea  v.   Pine        2,  cj8  Mich.  4j. 

Tp.  School  Dist.,   145   Pa.   St.  550.  6.  Statutory  Appeal  as  Prerequisite  to  Action. 

In    Ohio    it    has    been    held    that    though    the  — Park  v.   Independent   School    Dist.   No.    i,  65 

hoard    of    directors    is    vested    with    the    power  Iowa    J09 ;    Kirkpatrick   v.    Independent    School 

of  dismissing  teachers  only  for  sufficient  cause,  Dist.,    53    Iowa    585  ;    Harkness   v.    Hutcherson. 

no    remedy    is    provided    by    statute   against    the  90   Tex.   384. 

directors  in  their  official  capacity  for  a  wrong-  Decision  of  Superintendent  of    Public   Instruc- 

ful  dismissal.     Sub-school    Dist.  No.   7  v.   Bur-  tion  Held  Conclusive. — Jackson   v.   Independent 

ton,  26  Ohio  St.  421.  School    Dist.,    no    Iowa   313.      See   also    People 

2.  Measure  of  Damages.  —  School  Dist.  No.  3  v.  Eckler,  ig  Hun  (N.  Y.)  609;  Steinson  v. 
V.  Hale,  IS  Colo.  367;  Ewing  v.  School  Direct-  Board  of  Education,  49  N.  Y.  App.  Div.  148. 
ors  Dist.  Xo.  3,  2  III.  App.  458;  School  Direct-  7.  Park  v.  Independent  School  Dist.  No.  i, 
ors  7'.  Kimmel.  31  111.  App.  537:  McLellan  v.  65  Iowa  209;  Hull  v.  Independent  School  Dist., 
St.  Louis  Public  Schools,  15  Mo.  App.  362;  82  Iowa  686;  Benson  v.  District  Tp.,  100  Iowa 
McCutchen  v.  Windsor,  55  Mo.  149;  Beriac  v.  331;  Burkhead  v.  Indei)endent  School  Dist., 
Berlitz.  26  W.  X.  C.  (Pa.)  405;  Scott  v.  School  107  Iowa  29:  Jackson  v.  Independent  School 
Dist.    No.    2,    46   Vt.    452.  Dist..    (Iowa    1899)    77   X.   W.   Rep.   860. 

Burden  on  Board  to  Show  Possibility  of  Other  8.  Teacher   Not   a    Public    Oificer.  —  Bays     v. 

Employment.  —  Carver   v.    School    Dist.    No.    6,  State,   6    Neb.    167;    Heath   v.   Johnson,   2,^   W. 

113   Mich.   524;   Doyle  v.   School   Directors,   36  Va.  782:   People  v.  Board  of  Education,  3  Hun 

111.  App.  656.  (N.  Y.)    177;  Swartwood  v.  Walbridge,  57  Hun 

Duty  to  Tender  Services  After  Decision  on  Ap-  (N.  Y.)   34. 
peal  in  Teacher's  Favor.  —  Park  :■.   Independent  9.   See  State  v.   Smith.  49   Neb.   755  ;   Swart- 
School    Dist.  Xo.   I,  65   Iowa  209.  wood  v.  Walbridge,  57  Hun  CN.  Y.)  34.     Com- 

3.  Farrell  v.  School-Dist.  No.  2,  98  Mich.  43.  pare   Kennedv  ;•.   Board   of   Education.   82  Cal. 

4.  Sparta    School    Tp.    v.    Mendell.    138    Ind.  483. 

'^P-  ^     ,  Mandamus  Denied  to  Taxpayers  and  Voters. — 

6.    Jackson  t'.   Independent   School    Dist.,    no        State  v.    Smith.   49    Xeb.    755. 


Iowa   313. 

Seeking  Other  Employment  During  Vacation  in       Teacher   Removed   in   Illepaf  Manner.' —Peopre 
Case  of  Rescission  Before  Commencement  of  Term       z\  Van  Siclen,  43   Hun   CN.  Y.)   537. 


Mandamus  Granted  to  Compel  Reinstatement  of 
al    Manner.  — 
^'-  V.)    537. 
Volume  XXV. 


Teaebcr. 


SCHOOLS. 


Termination  of  Employment. 


whether  the  injunction  is  sought   by  the  teacher  *  or  by  the  taxpayers  and 
patrons  of  the  school.* 

(d)  Statutory  Appeal  to  Special  Tribunal.  —  In  many  jurisdictions  provision  is  made 
for  testing  the  legahty  of  dismissal  of  teachers  by  appeal  to  special  tribunals, 
such  as  the  state  superintendent  or  the  state  board  of  education,*  and  in  New 
Jersey  it  has  been  held  that  by  accepting  an  appointment  under  the  school  law 
a  teacher  bars  himself  from  having  the  propriety  of  his  dismissal  by  a  local 
board  reviewed  in  any  tribunal  except  those  specially  created  by  statute.'* 

(e)  Personal  Liability  of  Directors.  — Although  for  an  illegal  discharge,  if  acting 
within  the  scope  of  their  duty  and  without  malice  or  wantonness,  school 
directors  are  not  personally  liable,^  it  has  been  held  that  if  they  exceed  their 
authority  or  act  oppressively,  they  are  so  liable.® 

b.  Expiration  of  Term  of  Service  —  where  Duration  of  Term  is  Fixed  by 
Contract.  —  Where  the  term  of  service  is  specified  in  the  contract,  the  teacher 
cannot  claim  employment  for  a  longer  term  ^  unless  the  limitation  in  the 
contract  is  in  violation  of  public  policy  or  of  some  statutory  provision.** 

Where  Duration  of  Contract  Is  Not  Specified.  —  In  Tennessee  it  has  been  held  that 
where  a  teacher  is  employed  from  a  specified  date,  but  the  duration  of  the 
time  is  not  specified,  he  will  be  entitled  to  continue  teaching  during  the  school 
year,  subject  to  any  contingency  specified  in  the  contract.®  Under  the  Cali- 
fornia code  it  has  been  held  that  an  election  of  a  teacher  by  a  board  of  educa- 
tion for  no  specified  period  of  time  is  an  election  for  life,  subject  to  dismissal 
for  the  causes  specified  in  the  statute.*** 

c.  Resignation.  —  It  has  been  held  that  the  fact  that  a  school  teacher  has 
tendered  his  resignation  will  not  amount  to  an  abandonment  of  the  contract, 
until  it  is  accepted  by  the  other  party ;  the  teacher  has  the  right  to  with- 
draw it  at  any  time  before  it  is  acted  upon  by  the  school  board,  and  the  fact 


1.  See  Schwier  v.  Zitike,  136  Ind.  210; 
Ridenour  v.  Board  of  Education,  (Supm.  Ct. 
Spec.  T.)    15   Misc.  (N.  Y.)   418. 

In  Texas  it  has  been  held  that  a  dismissed 
teacher  who  has  not  availed  himself  of  the  right 
of  appeal  will  not  be  entitled  to  an  injunction 
against  another  teacher  substituted  in  his  place. 
Moreland  v.  Wynne,   (Tex.  Civ.  App.   lyoi)   62 

5.  W.  Rep.   1093- 

2.  School  Dist.  No.   i   v.  Carson,  9  Colo.  .^pp. 

6,  it  appearing,  however,  in  this  case  that  the 
substituted  teacher  was  competent  and  had  a 
valid  contract  with  the  board  and  that  the 
children  of  the  plaintiffs  were  at  perfect  liberty 
to  attend  school  and  receive  instruction  from 
him. 

3.  See  Jackson  v.  Independent  School  Dist., 
no  Iowa  313;  Draper  v.  Public  Instruction 
Com'rs,  66  N.  J.  L.  54 ;  Harkness  v.  Hutcher- 
son,  90  Tex.  384. 

4.  Draper  v.  Public  Instruction  Com'rs,  66  N. 
J.  L.   54.    . 

6.  Morrison  v.  McFarland,  51  Ind.  206;  Mc- 
Cutchen  v.  Windsor,  55  Mo.  153;  Gregory  v. 
Small,  39  Ohio  St.  346 ;  Burton  v.  Fulton,  49 
Pa.  St.  151.  See  also  Sub-school  Dist.  No.  7 
V.  Burton,  26  Ohio  St.  421. 

6.  McCutchen  v.  Windsor,  55  Mo.  149.  in 
which  case  it  was  held  that  directors  were  indi- 
vidually liable  in  tort  on  the  ground  that  they 
acted  beyond  the  scope  of  their  authority  by 
arbitrarily  taking  possession  of  the  schoolhouse 
and  persistently  refusing  to  allow  the  teacher 
to  complete  his  contract. 

7.  Marion  v.  Board  of  Education.  97  Cal. 
606. 


8.  School  Directors  v.  Leak,  (Tenn.  Ch. 
1898)   48  S.  W.  Rep.  692. 

Where  Limitation  of  Period  Amounts  to  Dis- 
crimination Against  Colored  Schools.  —  Where  a 
teacher  has  been  employed  to  teach  a  colored 
school  by  the  trustees  thereof,  under  the  super- 
vision of  the  board  of  education,  and  she  teaches 
the  school  during  the  full  term  of  the  other 
primary  schools  in  the  same  district,  satisfac- 
torily to  the  patrons  of  such  school,  she  is 
entitled  to  pay  for  her  whole  term  of  service; 
and  the  board  of  education  cannot  escape  the 
payment  thereof  by  interposing  a  plea  that  it 
had,  by  reason  of  the  school  being  a  colored 
school,  limited  the  term  thereof  to  a  shorter 
period  than  the  term  allotted  to  the  white  schools 
in  the  same  district.  Such  discrimination,  being 
made  merely  on  account  of  color,  cannot  be 
recognized  or  tolerated,  as  it  is  contrary  to  pub- 
lic policy  and  the  law  of  the  land.  Williams  v. 
Board  of  Education,  45   '>\'.  V^a    199. 

Contract  Extending  Beyond  One  School  Year 
Held  Invalid.  —  Burkhead  v.  Independent  School 
Dist.,    107    Iowa   29. 

Contract  Extending  Beyond  Three  Months  In- 
valid under  Statute.  —  Jay  v.  School  Dist.  No. 
I,    24   Mont.    219. 

9.  Butcher  v.  Charles,  95  Tenn.   532. 
Where  no  term  was  provided  by  the  contract, 

but  the  commissioners  agreed  to  pay  the  teacher 
with  the  "  available  funds "  for  one  year,  it 
was  held  that  the  contract  was  for  a  year. 
Commissioners  v.   Criswell,   6  Ala.    565. 

10.  Kennedy  v.  Board  of  Education,  82  Cal. 
483  ;  Fairchild  v.  Board  of  Education,  107  Cal. 
92. 

I  Volume  XXV 


Pupil. 


SCHOOLS. 


Admission, 


that  the  resignation  was  handed   to  the  president  and  retained   by  him  does 
not  amount  to  an  acceptance.* 

III.  Pupil  —  1.  Admission  —  ^?.  In  General.  —  Under  the  statutes  of  the 
various  states  residents  of  legal  school  age  are  entitled  to  attend  the  public 
schools,  subject  to  the  regulations  prescribed  by  law.- 

b.  Residence. — In  general,  children  whose  parents  are  nonresidents  of 
a  district  are  not  permitted  to  attend  the  schools  therein,  but  the  trustees  of 
the  school  district  are  frequently  authorized  by  statute  to  admit  the  children 
of  nonresident  parents  under  certain  conditions.* 

c.  SCEIOOL  Age.  —  Various  statutory  provisions  exist  in  the  different  states 
prescribing  the  legal  school  age.* 

d.  Colored  Pupils  —  Right  of  Admission  to  Public  Schools. — A  discussion  of 
the  question  of  the  power,  under  the  Fourteenth  Amendment  of  the  Federal 
Constitution,  of  the  state  legislatures,  or  of  the  school  authorities  in  the 
absence  of  express  legislation,  to  establish  and  maintain  separate  schools  for 
white  and  colored  children,  and  their  power  to  exclude  colored  children  from 
the  public  schools,  generally,  will  be  found  elsewhere  in  this  work.* 

Cir.  Dec.  Z27 ;  Board  of  Education  v.  Board  of 
Education,  58  Ohio  St.  390 ;  Board  of  Educa- 
tion V.  Board  oi  Education,  10  Ohio  Dec.  459, 
8  Ohio  N.  P.  21. 

Oklaho)iia.  —  Board  of  Education  v.  Hobbs, 
8  Okla.  293. 

Pennsylvania.  —  Freeman  v.  School  Direct- 
ors, 37  Pa.  St.  38s  ;  Cascade  School  Dist.  v. 
Lewis  School  Dist.,  43  Pa.  St.  318;  In  re  East 
Hopewell  Tp.   School  Dist.,  7   Pa.   Dist.   177. 

Vermont.  —  School  Dist.  No.  4  v.  School  Dist. 
No.  2,  64  Vt.  527  ;  Sheldon  Poor  House  Assoc. 
V.  Sheldon,  y2  Vt.  126. 

Wisconsin.  —  State  v.  Joint  School  Dist.  No. 
I.  65  Wis.  631,  56  Am.  Rep.  653;  State  v. 
Thayer,   74   Wis.  48. 

Children  in  Poorhouses.  —  It  has  been  held 
that  the  minor  children  of  paupers,  supported 
at  a  county  poorhouse,  have  a  right  to  attend 
the  public  school  in  the  district  in  which  such 
poorhouse  is  located.  School  Dist.  No.  2  v 
Pollard.  55  N.  H.  503. 

Inmates  of  Charitaljle  Institution.  —  In  Com. 
V.  Upper  Swatara  Tp.  School  Dist..  164  Pa.  St. 
602,  it  was  held  that  children  from  other  dis- 
tricts who  become  inmates  of  a  charitable  in- 
stitution ci,j  not  thereby  acrmire  the  right  to 
free  admission  to  the  public  schools  of  the 
township  in  which  the  institution  is  situated. 
To  the  same  effect  see  State  v.  School  Dist. 
No.  14.  10  Ohio  St.  448. 

Residents  of  Other  States  Not  Admitted.  — 
Wheck-r  7:  Burrow.  18  Ind.  14;  Haverhill  v. 
Gale.    u<:,   Mass.    104. 

4.  Legal  School  Age.  —  Board  of  Education 
•?'.  Bolton.  85  111.  .Vpp.  92;  People  v.  Board  of 
Education,  127  111.  613:  Nicklas's  Petition,  146 
Pa.  St.  212.  See  also  the  statutes  of  the  various 
states. 

Scholar  Must  Be  Under  Twenty-one.  —  Need- 
ham  :■.   Well.-'ile)-.    130   Mass.  372. 

Children  Under  School  Age  Held  Not  Entitled  to 
Gratuitous  Instruction.  —  Draper  v.  Cambridge, 
20  Ind.  268  ;  Roach  v.  St.  Louis  Public  Schools, 
r;  Mo.  484. 

Right  to  Establish  Kindergarten  for  Children 
Below  Certain  Age.  —  In  re  Kindergarten  Schools 

5.  'R)Vht  of  Admission  of  Colored  Pupils  to  Pub- 
lic   Schools.  —  See  the  title  Civil   Rights,  vol. 

Volume  XXV. 


1.  Curttright  '•.  Independent  School  Dist., 
1 1 1    Iowa  20. 

2.  General  Rule  as  to  Admission  of  Pupils. — 
Potts  V.  Breen,  167  ill.  67,  59  Am.  St.  Rep.  262; 
People  V.  Board  of  Education,  127  111.  613; 
Needham  v.  Wellesley,  139  Mass.  zi^;  Dallas 
V.  Fosdick,  (Supm.  Ct.  Gen.  T.)  40  How.  Pr. 
(N.  V.)  249;  Nicklas's  Petition,  146  Pa.  St. 
212.  See  also  I'eople  v.  Easton,  (Supin.  Ct.) 
13  Abb.  Pr.  N.  S.  (N.  Y.)    159. 

Statute  Exchiiing  Married  Persons.  —  Draper 
V.    Cambridge,    20    Ind.   268. 

Ex.lu5iDn  from  High  School  for  Want  of  Quali- 
fications. -Jones  V.  McProud,  62  Kan.  870,  64 
Pac.   Rep.  602. 

3.  Statutory  Reijuirements  as  to  Residence  of 
Pupils.  —  .-{rkansas.  —  Gacking  v.  School  Dist., 
65   Ark.   427. 

California.  —  Kramm  v.  Bogue,   127  Cal.    122. 

Connecticut.  —  Yale  v.  West  Middle  School 
Dist.,   59   Conn.  489. 

Dakota.  —  Gardner  v.  Board  of  Education,  5 
Dak.  259. 

Georgia.  —  Irvin  v.  Gregory,  86  Ga.  605. 

Illinois.  —  Board  of  School  Inspectors  v. 
People,  20  111.  525  ;  People  v.  Board  of  Educa- 
tion,  26  111.   App.  476. 

Indiana.  —  Edwards  v.   State.    143    Ind.   84. 

lozca.  —  Horton  Dist.  Tp.  v.  Ocheyedan  Dist. 
Tp..  49  Iowa  231  ;  Weldon  Independent  School 
Dist.  f.  Shelby  Independent  Scliool  Dist.,  113 
Iowa  549. 

Kentucky.  —  Rogers  v.  Graded  School,  (Kv. 
1890)    13  S.  W.  Rep.  587. 

Massachusetts.  —  Haverhill  v.  Gale,  103  Mass. 
104;  Millard  v.  Egremont.  164  Mass.  430; 
Hurlburt  v.  Boxford,  171  Mass.  501  ;  Fiske  z'. 
Huntington,   179  Mass.  571. 

Mississippi.  —  State    v.    Hamilton,    69 
116. 

Missouri.  —  Binde    v.    Klinge,    30    Mo. 


30 
Seven 


Miss. 
App. 
Pat- 


Montaiia.  —  School    Dist.    No. 
terson.    10  Mont.   17. 

Xetc  Hampshire.  —  School  Dist.  No.  i  v. 
Bragdon.  23  N.  H.  507  :  Union  School  Dist.  r. 
District  No.  20,  71   N.  H.  269. 

Ohio.  —  Board  of  Education  v.  Board  of 
Education.  5  Ohio  Cir.  Dec.  96,  10  Ohio  Cir. 
Ct.  617;  State  V.  Board  of  Education,  12  Ohio 


Pupil. 


SCHOOLS. 


Admission. 


Eight  of  Admission  to  Private  Institution.  —  It  has  been  held  that  the  Fourteenth 
Amendment  refers  exclusively  to  stale  action,  and  not  to  anything  which  may 
be  done  by  private  individuals,  and  hence  the  exclusion  of  colored  pupils  from 
a  private  institution  is  not  unconstitutional.* 

e.  Compulsory  Education  Acts.  —  Under  statute  in  some  of  the  states 
attendance  upon  the  public  schools  is,  under  prescribed  limitations,  made 
compulsory,  and  for  a  failure  to  comply  with  this  requirement  the  parent  or 
guardian  is  rendered  liable  to  criminal  prosecution.'^ 

/.  Vaccination  as  a  Prerequisite  —  statutory  Eequirement.  —  In  several 
states  laws  have  been  passed  requiring  vaccination  of  pupils  as  a  condition  of 
admittance  to  or  attendance  at  the  public  schools,*  and  such  statutes  have 
been  held  not  to  be  unconstitutional,*  it  being  intimated  at  the  same  time 
that  their  enforcement  is  not  dependent  upon  the  actual  existence  or  reason- 
able apprehension  of  smallpox  in  the  locality,* 

In  Absence  of  Statute.  —  But  it  has  been  held  that  in  the  absence  of  any  statute 
authorizing  compulsory  vaccination  or  requiring  vaccination  as  one  of  the  con- 
ditions of  the  right  or  privilege  of  attending  the  public  schools,  neither  a 
board  of  health  authorized  to  take  general  supervision  over  the  public  health 
nor  a  school  board  acting  under  the  general  power  conferred  upon  it  or  under 
the  direction  of  the  board  of  health  has  authority  to  pass  or  enforce  a  general 
rule  excluding  unvaccinated  children  from  the  public  schools,  at  least  in  the 
absence  of  proof  that  smallpox  actually  exists  or  is  reasonably  apprehended 
in  the  community  of  the  school  in  question.®  On  the  other  hand,  it  has  been 
held  that  a  general  grant  of  power  in  broad  and   comprehensive  terms,  to  do 


6,  pp.  83,  84,  86,  87.  And  see  the  following 
cases : 

Arkansas.  — 'MzMox  v.  Neal,  45  Ark.  121,55 
Am.  Rep.  540. 

California.  —  Tape  v.  Hurley,  66  Cal.  473 ; 
W'ysinger  v.  Crookshank,   82   Cal.   588. 

Georgia.  —  Raid  v.  Eatonton,  80  Ga.   755. 

///inoj'j.  —  People  -'.  McFall,  26  111.  App.  319- 

Indiana.  —  State  v.  Grubb,   85   Ind.  213. 

Kansas.  —  Knox  v.  Board  of  Education,  45 
Kan.  152. 

New  Jersey.  —  Pierce  v.  Union  Dist.  School 
Trustees,   46   N.  J.  L.  76. 

New  York.  —  People  v.  School  Board,  44  N. 
Y.  App.   Div.  469,  affirmed  i6i    N.  Y.  598. 

North  Carolina.  —  Puitt  v.  Gaston  County,  94 
N.  Car.  709,  55  Am.  Rep.  638 ;  McMillan  v. 
School  Committee,  107  N.  Car.  609;  Hare  v. 
Board  of  Education,   113  N.  Car.  9. 

Ohio.  —  Lane  z'.  Baker,  12  Ohio  238;  Stewart 
V.  Southard,  17  Ohio  402,  49  Am.  Dec.  463; 
Board  of  Education  v.  State,  45  Ohio  St.  555  ; 
Williams  v.  School  Dist.  No.  6,  Wright   (Ohio) 


579- 

Oklaho) 


Marion    v.    Territory, 


Okln 


,   Com.,    loi    Pa.   St. 
10   Phila.    (Pa.)    490, 


210. 

Pcnnsylz-ania.  —  Kaine 
490;    Com.  V.  Williamson. 
30   Leg.   Int.    (Pa.)    406. 

J'irgiiiia.  —  Eubank  t'.   Rongliton.  n8  Va.  40Q. 

By  Whom  Question  of  Color  Is  to  Be  Determined. 
—  In  Eubank  v.  Boughton,  08  Va.  400.  it  was 
held  that  the  question  whether  a  child  is  white 
nr  colored  is  to  le  determined  by  the  board  of 
school  trustees,  with  the  right  of  appeal  to  the 
en-iritv   sunerintendent   of  schools. 

Chinese  Pupil.  —  In  California  it  has  been  held 
that  a  child  of  the  les^n-l  school  ace.  of  Chinese 
parentage,  who  was  born  and  had  always  lived 
in  that  state,  was  entitled  to  admission  in  the 


23 


public    school    of    the   district    in    which    he    re- 
sided.    Tape  V.  Hurley,  66  Cal.  473. 

1.  State   V.    Maryland    Institute,    87    Md.    643. 

2.  Compulsory  Education  Acts.  —  Com.  v. 
Roberts,  159  Mass.  372;  Quigley  v.  State,  3 
Ohio  Cir.  Dec.  310,  5  Ohio  Cir.  Ct.  638;  Com. 
V.  Hammer,  9  Pa.  Dist.  251  ;  Com.  v.  Smith,  9 
Pa.  Dist.  625  ;  State  v.  McCaffrey,  69  Vt.  85  ; 
State  V.  Macdonald,  25  Wash.  122.  And  see 
the  statutes  of  the  various   states. 

Compulsory  Education  Act  Held  Constitutional. 
—  State  c'.  Bailey,   157  Ind.  324. 

Statutory  Provision  for  Establishment  of  Truant 
Schools.  —  Lynn  v.  Essex  County,  148  Mass.  148, 
153    Mass.  40. 

Provision  for  Attendance  Officers.  —  Reynolds 
r.  Board  of  Education,  33  \.  Y.  App.  Div.  88. 

3.  Statutes  Requiring  Vaccination.  —  Abeel  v. 
Clark,  84  Cal.  226  ;  Bissell  f.  Davison,  65  Conn. 
183  ;  Nissley  7\  Hummelstown  Borough  School 
Directors,  5  Pa.  Dist.  732:  Gerhard  v.  Packer 
Tp.  School  Dist.,  9  Pa.  Dist.  720 :  Sprague  r. 
Baldwin,  18  Pa.  Co.  Ct.  568. 

Exclusion  by  Principal  of  School.  —  Field  v. 
Rohinsnn.    108  Pa.   Si    ---^S. 

Nonliability  of  Pupil  Refusing  to  Be  Vacci- 
nated to  Penalty  under  Compulsory  Attendance 
Acts.  —  Com.  '.■.  Smith,  24  Pa.  Co.  Ct.  129,  6 
Lack.  Leg.  N.  (Pa.)  253.  8  Del.  Co.  Rep.  (Pa.) 
61,  Q  Pn.  Dist.  625.   14  "^'ork  Leg.  Rec.  (Pa.)  60. 

4.  Statutes  Held  Constitutional.  —  Bissell  v. 
Davison.  65  Conn.  183:  Field  z\  Robinson,  198 
Pa.   St.   63S. 

5.  Bissell  V.  Davison.  65   Conn.    183. 

6.  Requiring  Vaccination  Apart  from  Express 
Statute.  —  Potts  :•.  Breen,  167  111.  67,  59  Am. 
St.  Rep.  262  :  Lawbaugh  -•.  Board  of  Education, 
177  111.  572:  Osborn  z:  Russell.  64  Kan.  507; 
Mathews  v.  Kalamazoo  Board  of  Education,  127 
Mich.  530 ;  State  v.  Burdge,  95  Wis.  390.  Corn- 
Volume  XXV. 


Pupil, 


SCHOOLS. 


Punishment. 


all  acts  and  make  all  rules  necessary  for  the  preservation  of  the  public  health 
vests  in  the  authorities  designated  power  to  enforce,  in  cases  of  emergency 
rendering  it  rcasDiuibly  necessary  in  the  interests  of  public  health,  and  for  the 
prevention  of  the  spread  of  smallpox,  a  regulation  requiring  children  to  be 
vaccinated  as  a  condition  to  their  admission  to  the  public  schools.* 

g.  Payment  0I<"  Tuition.  —  Under  the  school  laws,  as  a  general  rule,  no 
tuition  fees  are  required  for  instruction  in  the  public  schools.*  But  it  has 
been  held  in  Kentucky  that  a  contract  between  a  teacher  and  a  board  of  trus- 
tees whereby  the  former  was  allowed  to  give  lessons  in  the  higher  branches 
of  education  to  pupils  desiring  them,  at  their  own  expense,  was  valid  in  tiie 
absence  of  proof  that  the  teacher's  duty  and  efficiency  in  connection  with  the 
common-school  branches  required  by  law  to  be  taught  were  interfered  with  or 
impaired.^ 

2.  Punishment  —  a.  Corporal  Punishment  —  (i)  In  General.  —  It  is  the 
dut)'  of  the  teacher  to  enforce  the  rules  and  regulations  adopted  by  the  school 
directors  for  the  government  of  the  school,  and  to  maintain  discipline  in  the 
school.  And  in  order  to  maintain  discipline  or  to  compel  obedience  to  any 
lawful  regulation,  the  teacher  may  inflict  corporal  punishment  upon  a  pupil, 
since  the  teacher  for  the  time  being  stands,  to  some  extent  at  least,  in  loco 
(parentis,  and  has  such  a  portion  of  the  powers  of  the  parent  delegated  to  him, 
namely,  that  of  restraint  and  correction,  as  may  be  necessary  to  answer  the 
purposes  for  which  he  is  employed.'* 


pare  Matter  of  Rebenack,  62  Mo.  App.  8  ;   Mat- 
ter of   Walters,  84   Hun   (N.  Y.)   457. 

1.  Blue  V.  Beach,  155  Ind.  121  ;  State  v. 
Ziiuincnnan,  86  Minn.  353  ;  Duffield  v.  Wil- 
liainsport  School  Uist.,  162  Pa.  St.  476;  State 
:■.   Board  of   Education,   21    Utah  401. 

2.  Tuition  Fees.  —  State  v.  Board  of  Educa- 
tion, 96  Wis.  95.  And  see  the  statutes  of  the 
various   states. 

Resolution  of  Board  Kequiring  Tuition  Fee  Held 
luvalid.  —  Young  v.  Fountain  Inn  Graded 
^chool,  64  S.  Car.  131,  distinguishing  Holler 
V.   Rock   Hill   School   Dist..   60   S.   Car.  41. 

Payment  of  Tuition  by  Nonresident.  —  Edwards 
f.  .State,  143  Ind.  84;  Rogers  v.  Graded  School, 
(Ky.  1890)  13  S.  W.  Rep.  587;  Fractional 
School  Dist.  No.  i  v.  Yerrington,  108  Mich. 
414;   State  v.  School   Dist.,  55   Neb.  317. 

In  State  v.  Board  of  Education,  96  Wis.  95, 
it  was  held  that  if  the  primary  purpose  of  a 
nonresident's  locating  in  a  certain  district  is 
to  participate  in  the  advantages  which  the 
public  schools  therein  afTord,  he  must  pay 
tuition,  even  though  there  be  some  other  inci- 
dental purpose  to  be  subserved  while  so  attend- 
ing school  therein.  To  the  same  effect  see 
School  District  v.  Matherly,  84  Mo.  .-Vpp.  140. 
See  also  School  Dist.  No.  i  v.  Bragdon,  23  N. 
H.  507.  But  where  a  child  of  school  age  is  sent 
or  goes  into  a  ce'rtain  school  district  with  the 
primary  purpose  of  securing  a  home  with  a 
particular  family,  then  he  is  entitled  to  the 
benefits  of  the  public  school  of  such  district  free 
of  charge.  State  v.  Thayer.  74  Wis.  48.  See 
also  Yale  :■.  West  Middle  School  Dist..  59  Conn. 
480 :    Gardner   v.    Board    of    Education.    5    Dak. 

Contract,  to  P<^v  Tuition  by  Nonresident  Enforce- 
able. —  Westfield  Borough  School  Dist.  v.  Dill- 
man.  22  Pa.  Co.  Ct.  567,  s  Lack.  Leg.  N.   (Pa.) 

Tuition  ^""sble  bv  Town  or  District  of  Resi- 
dence.—  Millard  f.    Egremont,    164   Mass.    430: 


Hurlburt  X'.  Boxford,  171  Mass.  501  ;  State  i'. 
Hamilton,  69  Miss.  116:  Union  School  Dist.  i\ 
District  No.   jo,   71    N.   H.  269. 

District  of  Residence  Held  Not  Liable  for  Tuition 
Apart  from  Agreement.  —  Board  of  Education  v. 
Board  of   Education,  50  Ohio  St.  439. 

3.  Major  v.   Cayce,   98   Ky.   357. 

4.  Power  of  Teacher  to  Inflict  Corporal  Punish- 
ment. —  See  generally  the  title  Ass.\ult  asu 
Battickv,  vol.  2,  p.  962.  And  see  Thomason  v. 
State,  (Tex.  Crim.  1898)  43  S.  W.  Rep.  1013; 
State  V.  Burton,  45  Wis.  150,  30  Am.  Rep.  706. 

Whether  Teacher  Acts  in  Loco  Parentis.  —  In 
Fitzgerald  v.  Northcote,  4  F.  &  F.  656,  Cock- 
burn,  C.  J.,  said:  "Now,  as  to  this  I  have  to 
tell  you  that  the  authority  of  the  schoolmaster 
is,  while  it  exists,  the  same  as  that  of  the  p.ir- 
ent.  A  parent,  when  he  places  his  child  with  a 
schoolmaster,  delegates  to  him  all  his  own  au- 
thority so  far  as  it  is  necessary  for  the  welfare 
of  the  child."  But  this  rule  h«s  been  questioned, 
and  the  tendency  of  the  modern  cases  is  to  hold 
that  a  teacher  has  only  such  portion  of  the 
powers  of  the  parent  as  may  be  necessary  to 
answer  the  purposes  for  which  he  is  employed. 
I  Bl.  Com.  453;  Lander  v.  Seaver,  32  Vt.  114; 
76  Am.  Dec.  156;  Rulison  v.  Post,  79  111.  567; 
State  V.  Webber,  108  Ind.  31,  58  Am.  Rep. 
30;  State  T'.  Mizner.  50  Iowa  145.  32  Am.  Rep. 
128:  Morrow  v.  Wood,  35  Wis.  59,  17  Am. 
Ren.  471. 

Moderate  Correction  by  Teacher  Authorized  by 
Statute.  —  Penal  Code  of  Texas,  art.  490.  subd. 
I  ;  Hutton  v.  State,  23  Tex.  App.  386 ;  59 
Am.  Rep.  776;  Bolding  v.  State,  23  Tex.  App. 
172. 

Right  to  Remove  Adult  Pupil  by  Force.  — 
Stevens  7.'.  Fassett,  27  Me.  266. 

But  in  Hughes  v.  Goodell.  3  Pittsb.  fPa.) 
264,  it  was  held  that  a  student  expelled  from  a 
normal  school  by  the  facultv  could  not  be  ex- 
cluded from  a  public  exhibition  subsequently 
given  at  the  school,  without  any  evidence  of 
Volume  XXV. 


Pupil. 


SCHOUL^. 


Panlshment. 


\2)  Wanton  or  Malicious  Punishment.  —  If  the  teacher  inflicts  punishment 
wantonly  or  to  gratify  malice  he  will  be  liable.' 

(3)  Excessive  PiDiisknient.  —  In  some  of  the  cases  it  is  held  that  the  teacher 
must  exercise  judgnient  and  discretion,  and  in  every  instance  be  governed  as  to 
the  severity  of  the  punishment  by  the  nature  of  the  offense,  and  the  age,  size, 
and  endurance  of  the  pupil,  and  that  he  will  be  liable  if  he  inflicts  punishment 
which  in  the  judgment  of  a  reasonable  man  is  clearly  excessive  or  immoderate, 
regardless  of  whether  his  mocive  was  malicious  or  not,-  On  the  other  hand, 
it  is  held  that  for  an  error  in  judgment,  although  the  punishment  is  unneces- 
sarily excessive,  if  it  is  not  of  a  nature  to  cause  lasting  injury  and  if  the  teacher 
acts  in  good  faith,  he  is  not  liable.^  It  is  a  question  for  the  jury  upon  the  facts 
of  the  case  whether  or  not  punishment  was  excessive.* 

b.  Expulsion  and  Suspension  —  (1)  Pozver  to  Expel—  (a)  school  Board.  — 
The  power  to  expel  or  suspend  a  pupil  from  school  for  sufficient  cause  has 
been  conferred  by  statute  in  some  states  upon  the  school  directors  or  trustees, 
or  similar  officers.^  And  even  where  the  authority  of  the  school  directors  is 
not  defined  by  statute,  they  nevertheless  have  power  to  expel  or  suspend  the 
pupil  from  school  for  sufficient  cause.** 

(^b)  Teacher.  —  A  teacher  also  has  the  inherent  power  to  suspend  a  pupil 
whenever  necessary  for  the  interests  of  the  school,  unless  he  has  been 
deprived  of  the  power  by  statute  or  the  affirmative  action  of  the  proper 
authorities,'      But  it  has  been  held  that  a  teacher  has  no  authority  to  exclude 


improper  conduct  or  suspicion  of  improper  mo- 
tive, and  that  a  recovery  could  l)e  had  for  a 
forcible  exclusion. 

Oiiense  for  Which  Punishment  Is  Inflicted  Must 
Be  Definite  and  Known  to  Pupil.  —  State  v. 
Mitzner,   50  lovva   149,   },-  Am.  l<ep.   128. 

Presumption  that  Punishment  Was  Lawful.  — 
State  V.  Pendergrass,  2  Dev.  &  B.  L.  (,19  N. 
Car.)  365,  31  Am.  Dec.  416;  Com.  v.  Seed,  5 
Pa.  L.  J.  Rep.  78,  4  Am.  L.  J.  N.  S.  137;  An- 
derson V.  State,  3  Head  (Tenn.)  455,  75  Am. 
Dec.  774;  Hathaway  v.  Rice,  19  Vt.  102;  Lan- 
der V.  Seaver,  2,2  Vt.  114,  76  Am.  Dec. 
156. 

But  where  evidence  is  introduced  on  both 
sides  of  the  (luestion  no  presumption  will  be 
entertained.  Haycraft  v.  Grigsby,  88  Mo.  App. 
354- 

Nonliability  of  Municipality  for  Act  of  Attend- 
ance Officer  Appointed  in  Obedience  to  Act  of  Legis- 
lature. -  Kli.ill  r.»  Board  of  Education,  40  N.  Y. 
App.   Div.  412. 

1.  Liability  for  Wanton  or  Malicious  Punish- 
ment.—  Boyd  V.  State.  88  Ala.  169,  16  Am.  St. 
Rep.  31  ;  State  v.  Long,  117  N.  Car.  791.  See 
also  Anderson  v.  State,  3  Head  (Tenn.)  455, 
75    Am.    Dec.   774- 

Testimony  of  Teacher  as  to  His  Intent  Admis- 
sible. —  Kinnard  v.  State,  35  Tc,\.  Crim.  276, 
60  Am.  St.  Rep.  47  :  Howerton  v.  State,  (Tex. 
Crim.   1808)   4.^   S.  W.  Rep.   1018. 

2.  Liability  for  Excessive  Punishment.  —  Boyd 
7'.  State,  88  .A.la.  172,  16  Am.  St.  Rep.  31; 
Sheehan  v.  Sturges,  53  Conn.  481  ;  Cooper  v. 
Mcjunkin.  4  Ind.  290;  Vanvactor  v.  State,  113 
Ind.  276,  3  Am.  St.  Rep.  64s  :  Patterson  v. 
Nutter,  78  Me.  512;  Com.  v.  Randall,  4  Gray 
(Mass.)  36;  State  v.  Beyer,  70  Mo.  App.  156; 
Haycrnft  7'.  Grifcb^T  S8  Mo.  Apo.  359:  Ander- 
son V.  State.  3  Hand  (Tenn.)  455.  7s  Am.  Dec. 
774:  Lande-  7'.  Seaver.  32  Vt.  iia,  76  Am.  Dec. 
i=;6.  See  nlFo  Hnwerton  7-.  State,  (Tex.  Crim. 
1898)  43  S.  W.  Rep.  1018. 


25 


Teacher  Incompetent  as  Expert  on  Question  of 
Reasonableness  of  Force  Used.  —  Howerton  v. 
State,    (lex.   Crim.    iSyS)    43    S.   W.    Rep.    1018. 

Liability  for  Manslaughter  in  Case  of  Pupil's 
Death  from  Ciiastisement.  —  Reg.  v.  Hopley,  2 
F.  &  F.  206. 

3.  Fox  V.  People,  84  111.  App.  270  ;  Heritage 
7'.  Dodge.  64  N.  H.  297  ;  State  v.  Pendergrass,  2 
Dev.  &  B.  L.  (19  N.  Car.)  365,  31  Am.  Dec. 
416;  State  V.  Alford,  68  N.  Car.  322;  Com.  v. 
Seed,  5  Pa.  L.  J.  Rep.  78,  4  Am.  L.  J.  N.  S.  137  ; 
State  V.  Burton,  45  Wis.  150,  30  Am.  Rep.  706. 

4.  Excessiveness  a  Queiition  for  the  Jury.  — 
Com.  7'.  Randall,  4  Gray  (Mass.)  36;  State  v. 
Boyer,  70  Mo.  .\pp.  156;  Lander  v.  Seaver,  32 
Vt.   114,   76  .'Vm.   Dec.    156. 

But  in  State  v.  Mizner,  50  Iowa  145,  32  Am. 
Rep.  128,  it  was  said:  "Any  punishment  with 
a  rod  which  leaves  marks  or  welts  on  the  person 
of  the  pupil  for  two  months  afterward,  or  much 
less  time,  is  immoderate  and  excessive,  and  the 
court  would  have  been  justified  in  so  instructing 
l!ie  jury." 

5.  See   the   statutes  of  the  various  states. 

6.  Power  of  School  Board  to  Suspend  Pupils.  — 
Rulison  V.  Post.  79  111.  567  :  Murphy  v.  Board 
of  Directors,  30  Iowa  429  ;  Burdick  v.  Babcock, 
31  Iowa  562;  Spear  v.  Cummings,  2^  Pick. 
(Mass.)  226,  34  Am.  Dec.  53:  Roberts  v.  Bos- 
ton. 5  Cush.  (Mass.)  198:  Sherman  v.  Charles- 
town.  8  Cush.  (Mass.)  160:  Spiller  t/.  Woburn, 
12  Allen  (Mass.)  127:  Hodgkins  v.  Rockport, 
105  Mass.  475  ;  Sewell  7'.  Board  of  Education, 
29  Ohio  St.  89 :  Ferriter  v.  Tyler,  48  Vt.  444, 
2^    Arn.  Ren.   ^y\. 

Ei^ht  of  Sinele  Member  of  Board  to  Exclude 
Pupil  Temporarily  by  Fovcp. — Peck  7'.  Smith. 
41    Conn.  44-:   State  v.  Williams,  27  Vt.  755. 

7.  Power  of  Teacher  to  Suspend  Pupil.  —  Fer- 
riter V.  Tvler.  48  \X.  444.  21  Am.  Rep.  133  ; 
Cfo*o  -.    Piirton.  .1-   '^Vis.   iqi.  30   Am.  Rep.  -o(i. 

Fpinstatomen*.  by  Board  as  Ground  for  Tearhpr's 
Quitting    School.  —  And  it  h.TS  been  held  that  if 
Volume  XXV. 


Pupil. 


SCHOOLS. 


Punishment. 


a  child  permanently  from  school  unless  he  acts  under  the  order  of   the  proper 
school  authorities.* 

(2)  Grounds  for  Expulsion  —  (a)  Violation  of  Rules.  —  Expulsion  or  suspension 
may  be  incurred  by  a  breach  of  a  reasonable  rule  or  regulation  properly  pre- 
scribed by  the  school  authorities.* 

(b)  In  Absence  of  Express  Regulations.  —  It  is  not  absolutely  essential  that  there 
should  be  an  express  rule  which  has  been  violated  ;  where  there  has  been  no 
infraction  of  a  positive  rule  a  pupil  still  may  incur  expulsion  or  suspension  by 
conduct  subversive  of  or  detrimental  to  good  order  or  discipline  in  the  school. ■"* 
If,  however,  the  act  is  in  itself  harmless,  but  may  be  harmful  on  account  of 
the  peculiar  conditions  surrounding  the  school,  it  has  been  held  that  there 
must  be  a  rule  to  justify  expulsion."* 

(c)  Conduct  Authorized  by  Parent.  —  And  the  penalty  of  expulsion  or  suspension 
may  be  incurred  though  the  acts  complained  of  were  authorized  by  the  parent 
or  parents  of  the  pupil.'' 

(d)  Conduct  of  Parent.  —  So  it  has  been  held  that  the  board,  either  in  the 
absence  of  a  rule  or  in  furtherance  of  a  prescribed  rule,  has  the  right  to 
exclude  from  the  schools  under  its  control  any  child  whose  parent,  in  the 
schoolroom  or  its  vicinity,  in  the  presence  of  such  child  and  other  pupils,  has 
conducted  himself  in  such  manner  that  his  acts  were  calculated  to  produce 
disorder  in  the  school.® 

(3)  RcDicdics — (a)  Action  for  Damages.  —  If  the  school  directors  act  in  good 
faith,  they  are  not  liable  for  an  error  of  judgment  in  expelling  a  pupil.  The 
right  to  recover  is  limited  to  cases  where  the  public  officials  have  acted  wantonly 
or  maliciously.''' 

a  teacher  expels  a  student  for  good  cause  and 
the  school  committee  afterwards  insists  on  the 
pupil's  reinstatement  regardless  of  its  effect 
upon  the  discipline  of  the  school,  the  teacher 
will  be  justified  in  leaving  the  school.  Scott  v. 
School    Dist.   No.   2,   46   Vt.   452. 

1.  Bishop  V.  Rowley,  165  Mass.  460;  State  v. 
Board   of    Education,   96   Wis.   95. 

Right  of  Parent  to  Appeal  to  Committee.  — 
Bishop    v.    Rnwicy.    165    Mass.    460. 

2.  Violation  of  Reasonable  Rules  as  Ground  for 
Expulsion.  —  Samuel  Benedict  Memorial  School 
V.  Bradford,  11 1  Ga.  801  ;  State  v.  Webber,  108 
Ind.  31,  58  Am.  Rep.  30;  Sherman  v.  Charles- 
town,  8  Cush.  (Mass.)  160;  Spiller  v.  Woburn, 
12  Allen  (Mass.)  127;  Russell  v.  Lynnfield,  116 
Mass.  365  ;  Guernsey  v.  Pitkin,  32  Vt.  224,  76 
Am.  Dec.  171.  See  injra,  this  title,  Rules  and 
Regulations. 

Private  School.  —  Curry  v.  Lasell  Seminary 
Co..    1 68   Mass.   7. 

3.  Stevens  r.  Fassett.  27  Me.  266 ;  State  v. 
H.Tiiiilton.  42  Mo.  .'\pp.  2.(. 

Expulsion  for  Use  of  Improper  Language.  — 
Kabus  V.  Seftncr.  (Supni.  Ct.  App.  T. )  34  Misc. 
(N.  Y.)  538.  See  also  Board  of  Education  v. 
Helston.  :^2  III.  .'\pp.  301. 

Suspension  for  Refusal  to  Inform  Directors  of 
Name  of  Pupil  Violating  Rules.  —  Board  of  Edu- 
cation f.   Helston,  32  III.  .App.  300. 

4.  Board  of  Education  :•.  Purse,  loi  Ga.  422, 
65  .\m.  St.  Rep.  312. 

5.  Expulsion  for  Acts  Authorized  by  Parent.  — 
State  f.  Webber.  to8  Ind.  31,  58  Am.  Rep.  30; 
Burdick  z:  Babcock,  31  Iowa  562:  King  v.  Jef- 
ferson City  School  Board,  71  Mo.  628,  36  Am. 
Rep.  499  :  Bourne  r.  State.  35  Neb.  i  :  Fessman 
V.  Seeley,  (Tex.  Civ.  App.  1895)  30  S.  W.  Rep. 
268;  Ferriter  v.  Tyler,  48  Vt.  444,  21  Am.  Rep. 


26 


133-  See  also  Curry  v.  Lasell  Seminary  Co., 
168  Mass.  7. 

Rule  Forbidding  Absence  or  Tardiness.  —  Bur- 
dick 7'.  Habcock,  31  Iowa  562:  King  r.  Jefferson 
City  School  Board,  71  Mo.  628,  36  Am.  Rep. 
499;  Ferriter  v.  Tyler,  48  Vt.  444,  21  Am.  Rep. 
133- 

Absence  with  Parent's  Sanction  as  Ground  for 
Expulsion  from  Private  School,  —  Fessman  v. 
Sccley.  (Tex.  Civ.  .\pp.  1895)  30  S.  W.  Rep.  268. 
Especially  is  this  a  ground  for  expulsion  where 
it  is  in  violation  of  a  school  regulation  which  is 
made  a  part  of  the  contract.  Curry  v.  Lasell 
Seminary  Co..  168  Mass.  7. 

6.  Board  of  Education  ;■.  Purse.  loi  Ga.  422, 
65  .Am.  St.  Rep.  312. 

7.  No  Liability  for  Error  of  Judgment  in  Ex- 
pelling Pupil. —  McCorniick  7\  Burt.  95  III.  26,^. 
35  Am.  Rep.  163;  Churchill  f.  Fewkes,  13  111. 
App.  520:  Donahoe  ?■.  Richards,  38  Me.  376; 
Dritt  V.  Snodgrass,  66  Mo.  286,  27  Am.  Rep. 
343:  Stephenson  v.  Hall,  14  Barb.   (N.  Y.)  222. 

Statutoi-y  Liability  of  Town.  —  Under  statute 
in  Mtissaclnisrits,  making  tiic  city  or  town  liable 
to  an  action  for  damages  for  the  unlawful  ex- 
clusion of  a  pupil  from  school,  it  has  been  held 
tjiat  no  recovery  could  be  had  where  the  school 
committee  acted  in  good  faith.  Sherman  z'. 
Charlestown,  8  Cush.  (Mass.)  160;  Hodgkins  v. 
Rockport,  105  Mass.  475  ;  Watson  v.  Cambridge, 
157  Mass.  561  ;  Morrison  -'.  Lawrence,  181  Mass. 
127.  But  an  action  was  held  to  be  maintainable 
where  the  committee  acted  arbitrarily  in  failing 
to  give  a  hearing  where  the  facts  were  in  dis- 
pute.    Bishop  Z-.  Rowley,  165  Mass.  460. 

In  Davis  z\  Boston.  133  Mass.  103,  it  was  held 
that  before  suit  can  be  brought  for  the  expulsion 
of  a  pupil  by  a  teacher  the  parent  is  required  to 
appeal  to  the  school  committee. 

Volume  XXV. 


Bules  and  Regulations. 


SCIfOOLS. 


Rules  and  Regulations, 


Right  of  Action  in  Pupil.  —  The  right  of  action,  if  any  exists,  it  has  been  held, 
is  in  the  pupil  and  not  in  the  parent.* 

(b)  Mandamus.  —  Mandamus  will  lie  to  compel  a  board  of  education  to  rein- 
state a  public  school  pupil  wh.o  has  been  arbitrarily  excluded.* 

Right  of  Action  in  Parent  or  Guardian.  —  The  parent  is  the  natural  guardian  of 
the  minor,  charged  b\'  law  with  the  duty  of  sending  him  to  school,  and  to 
enable  him  to  perform  that  duty  he  is  entitled  in  his  own  behalf  to  bring 
mmdamus.-'* 

(c)  Recovery  of  Advance  Payments  to  Private  School. — Where  payments  have  been 
made  in  advance  for  tuition  in  a  private  school  and  the  pupil  is  afterwards 
expelled  for  cause,  and  the  school  authorities  are  thus,  by  the  pupil's  act,  pre- 
vented from  performing  their  contract,  no  recovery  can,  as  a  general  rule,  be 
had  for  the  money  advanced,'*  especially  where  the  contract  expressly  so  pro- 
vides.* Indeed,  where  the  contract  provides  that  no  money  will  be  returned 
in  case  of  dismissal  for  bad  conduct,  a  recovery  may  be  had  for  tuition  due 
but  unpaid  at  the  time  of  the  expulsion.*' 

c.  Offenses  Out  of  School.  —  The  right  to  chastise''  or  expel*  is  not 
necessarily  limited  to  acts  done  during  school  hours,  but  may  extend  to  acts 
committed  outside  of  the  schoolroom,  if  the  effect  of  such  acts  reaches  within 
the  schoolroom  and  is  detrimental  to  good  order  and  the  best  interests  of  the 
school,  and  this  rule  applies  to  conduct  of  the  pupil  after  his  return  home,*  as 
well  as  to  his  conduct  in  going  to  and  from  school.*® 

IV.  Rules  and  Regulations.  —  The  board  of  directors  or  trustees  have 
power  to  adopt  and  enforce  ai)propriate  and  reasonable  rules  and  regulations 

Damages  Held  Not  Recoverable  Against  Teacher. 

—  Stuckey  :■.  Churchman,  2  111.  App.  5S4  :  Spear 
V.  Cunimings,  2i  Pick.  (.Mass.)  2J4,  34  Am. 
Dec.  53- 

1.  Donahoe  c'.  Richards,  38  Me.  376  ;  Stephen- 
son V.  Hall,  14  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  222.  See  also 
Sherman  v.  Charleslown,  8  Gush.  (Mass.)  161  ; 
Spear  z\  Cummings,  zt.  Pick.  (Mass.)  224,  34 
Am.  Dec.  53.  But  see  Roe  v.  Deming,  21  Ohio 
St.  666. 

Right  of  Parent  to  Damages  for  Amount  Re- 
quired to  Be  Expended  in  Education  of  Child.  — 
See  Hoard  of  luiucation  v.  I'urse,  loi  Ga.  422, 
65  Atr,.  St.  Rep.  312;  Morrison  v.  Lawrence, 
181  Mass.  127;  Larock  v.  Putnam,  in  Mass. 
400. 

2.  Mandamus  to  Compel  Reinstatement  of  Pupil. 

—  Board  of  Education  ;•.  Helston.  t,2  111.  App. 
301  ;  Murphy  v.  Board  of  Directors,  30  Iowa 
429;  Perkins  V-  Independent  School  Dist.,  56 
Iowa  476  ;  S'atc  v.  Osborne,  24  'do.  App.  300. 
32  Mo.  App.  536.  See  also  Brown  v.  Cleveland 
Board  of  Education,  8  Ohio  Dec.  378.  6  Ohio 
N.  P.  411  ;  Cochran  z'.  Patillo,  16  Tex.  Civ.  App. 
458  :  State  v.  Board  of  Education,  63  Wis.  234, 
53  Am.  Rep.  282. 

Pupil  Refusing  to  Obey  Reasonable  Order  Not 
Entitled  to  Mandamus,  —  State  r.  Randall,  79 
Mo.  App.  226. 

Failure  to  Appeal  to  County  Superintendent  as 
Ground  for  Denial  of  Writ.  —  Eubank  f.  Boughton, 

Failure  to  Appeal  to  Board  for  Act  of  Principal 
as  Ground  for  Denial  of  Mandamus.  —  People  v. 
Board  of  Education,  (N.  Y.  Super.  Ct.  Spec.  T.) 
4  N.  Y.  Supp.  102. 

3.  Bissell  V.  Davison.  65  Conn.  190;  People  v. 
Board  of  Education,   18  Mich.  400. 

In  cases  where  application  was  made  for  re- 
instatement of  the  child  in  the  school,  it  will  be 
generally   found  that  the  application   was   made 


in  the  name  and  in  behalf  of  the  parent  or 
guardian.  Board  of  Education  v.  Purse,  loi 
Ga.  422,  65  Am.  St.  Rep.  312;  Rulison  v.  Post, 
79  111.  567  ;  School  Trustees  v.  People,  87  111. 
303,  29  Am.  Rep.  55  ;  People  v.  Board  of  Edu- 
cation, 18  Mich.  400;  Holman  v.  School-Dist. 
No.  5,  7-  Mich.  605  ;  Binde  v.  Klinge,  30  Mo. 
App.  285  ;  State  v.  Board  of  Education,  63  Wis. 
234,  53  Am.  Rep.  282. 

4.  Curry  v.  Lasell  Seminary  Co.,  168  Mass. 
7  ;  Kabus  v.  Seftner,  (Supm.  Ct.  App.  T.)  34 
Misc.  (N.  Y.)  538. 

5.  Fessman  v.  Seeley,  (Tex.  Civ.  App.  1895) 
30  S.  W.  Rep.  268. 

6.  Horner  r.  Wcstcott,   124  N.  Car.  518. 
Pupil  Admitted  on  Half  Rates.  —  \\'here     by 

special  contract  half  of  the  catalogue  prices  was 
to  be  paid,  and  dismissal  occurred  before  pay- 
ment, half  rates  only  are  recoverable.  Horner 
School  -'.  Wcscott,  124  N.  Car.  518. 

7.  Right  to  Chastise  for  Offenses  Out  of  School. 

—  Deskins  z\  Gosc.  85  Mo.  485,  55  Am.  Rep. 
387  ;  Hutton  v.  State.  2^  Tex.  App.  386,  59  Am. 
Rep.  776:  Lander  t.  Seaver,  32  Vt.  114,  76  Am. 
Dec.  156.  See  also  Bolding  v.  State,  2^  Tex. 
App.  t72. 

8.  Expulsion  for  Offenses  Out  of  School.  —  Bur- 
dick  V.  Balicock.  31  Iowa  562;  Sherman  v. 
Charlcstown.  S  Cush.  (Mass.)  160.  Compare 
Mnrpliy  ?■.   Board  of  Directors,  30  Iowa  429- 

Acts  of  Immorality.  —  Sherman  v.  Charles- 
town.  8  Cush.  (Mass.)   160. 

9.  King  V.  Jefferson  City  School  Board.  71 
Mo.  628.  36  Am.  Rep.  409,  distinguishing  Dritt 
?'.  Snodgrass.  66  Mo.  286.  27  Am.  Rep.  343- 

Insulting  Teacher  in  Presence  of  Other  Pupils. 

—  Lander  :■.   Seaver,   32   Vt.   114.    7fJ 


Dec. 


10.  Quarreling  or  Using  Profane  Language  on 
Way  Horn.  -Deskins  v.  Gcse,  85  Mo.  485.  55 
Am.  Rep.  387. 

Volume  XXV. 


Enles  and  Regulations. 


SCHOOLS. 


Rulos  and  Regulations. 


for  the  government  and  management  of  the  schools  under  their  control.'  It 
is  the  right  of  the  teacher,  in  the  absence  of  rules  established  by  the  school 
board  or  other  proper  authority,  to  make  all  necessary  and  proper  rules  for 
the  good  conduct  and  order  of  the  school,  and  it  is  his  duty  to  see  that  order 
is  maintained  and  the  rules  observed.  It  frequently  happens  that  emergencies 
arise  which  require  prompt  action  and  for  which  the  rules  do  not  provide.     In 


1.  Power  of  Board  to  Adopt  Reasonable  Regula- 
tions.—  Ward  V.  Flood,  4S  C'al.  36,  17  Am. 
Rep.  405;  People  v.  Board  of  Education,  26  111. 
App.  476;  Board  of  Education  v.  Bolton,  85  111. 
App.  95  ;  Rulison  v.  Post,  79  HI.  567  ;  Uanen- 
hoffer  V.  State,  69  Ind.  J95,  35  Am.  Rep.  216; 
Fertich  -•.  Michencr,  iii  Ind.  472,  60  Am.  Rep. 
709;  Donahoe  v.  Richards,  38  Me.  376;  Sher- 
man V.  Ciiarlcstown,  8  Cush.  (Mass.)  160;  Hol- 
man  v.  School-Dist.  No.  5,  77  Mich.  605  ;  King 
V.  Jefferson  City  School  Board,  71  Mo.  628,  36 
Am.  Rep.  499  ;  Dritt  v.  Snodgrass,  66  Mo.  286, 
27  Am.  Rep.  343  ;  Bourne  v.  State,  35  Neb.  i  ; 
Roe  V.  Deming,  21  Ohio  St.  666 ;  Sewell  v. 
Board  of  Education,  29  Ohio  St.  8g  ;  Guernsey 
V.  Pitkin,  32  \'t.  225,  76  Am.  Dec.  171.  See 
also  Weatherly  v.  Chattanooga,  (Tenn.  Ch. 
1898)  48  S.  W.  Rep.  136. 

In  Burdick  f.  Bahcock,  31  Iowa  562,  Beck,  J., 
said  :  "  Any  rule  of  the  school,  not  subversive 
of  the  rights  of  the  children  or  i)arents,  or  in 
conflict  with  humanity  and  the  precepts  of  di- 
vine law,  which  tends  to  advance  the  object  of 
the  law  in  establishing  pul)lic  schools,  must  be 
considered  reasonable  and  proper." 

Requiring  Pupils  to  Pursue  Particular  Studies 
Held  Reasonable.  —  State  -■.  \\'ebbir,  108  Ind. 
31,  ScS  Am.  Rep.  30;  State  ;■.  Mizner,  50  Iowa 
145,  32  .\m.  Rep.  128;  Sewell  z\  Board  of  Edu- 
cation, 29  Ohio  St.  89 ;  Guernsey  v.  Pitkin,  32 
Vt.  225,  76  Am.  Dec.  171. 

The  authorities  of  a  public  school  have  full 
power  to  make  it  a  part  of  the  school  course  to 
write  compositions  and  enter  into  debates,  to 
determine  upon  suitable  subjects,  and  to  pre- 
scribe that  all  pupils  shall  participate  therein. 
Samuel  Benedict  Memorial  School  v.  Bradford, 
III  Ga.  801  ;  Guernsey  v.  Pitkin,  32  Vt.  224,  76 
Am.  Dec.  171. 

And  it  has  been  held  that  for  a  failure  to 
comply  with  such  regulation  a  pupil  may  be  ex- 
pelled. Samuel  Benedict  Memorial  School  v. 
Bradford,  iii  Ga.  801;  State  v.  Webber,  108 
Ind.  31,  58  Am.  Rep.  30;  Guernsey  v.  Pitkin, 
:S2  Vt.  224,  76  Am.  Dec.  171.  And  this  though 
the  pupil  acted  under  the  parent's  direction. 
State  V.  Webber,  108  Ind.  31,  58  .\m.  Rep.  30. 

But  it  has  been  held  that  the  teacher  is  not 
authorized  to  punish  a  pupil  for  refusing  to  pur- 
sue a  certain  course  of  study,  where  the  parent 
had  requested  that  the  pupil  be  excused  from  so 
doing.  State  z>.  Mizner,  50  Iowa  145,  t,2  Am. 
Rep.   128. 

Moreover,  the  rule  is  laid  down  in  several 
authorities,  that  requiring  a  pupil  to  pursue 
a  study  when  the  parent  requests  that  he  be 
excused  from  so  doing  is  unreasonable,  so  long 
as  the  failure  of  the  pupil  thus  excepted  to 
study  all  the  branches  of  the  prescribed  course 
does  not  prejudice  the  equal  rights  of  othi-r 
pupils.  Rulison  v.  Post,  79  111.  569  •  School 
Trustees  v.  People.  87  111.  303,  20  Am.  Rep.  55  : 
State  V.  School  Dist.  No.  i,  31  Neb.  552;  Mor- 
row V.  Wood,  35  Wis.  59,  17  Am.  Rep.  471. 


28 


Rule  Requiring  Payment  for  Damage  to  School 
Property  on  Pain  of  Expulsion  or  Chastisement 
Unreasonable.  -- State  v.  Vanderbilt,  116  Ind. 
11,9  Am.  St.  Rep.  820;  Perkins  v.  Independent 
School  Dist..  56  Iowa  476. 

Rule  Requiring  Child  of  Certain  Age  to  Enter 
Within  Specified  Time.  riulir  Massachusctis 
statutes  allowing  but  not  reciuiring  chiklren  un- 
der seven  years  of  age  to  attend  the  public 
schools,  it  has  been  held  that  a  requirement 
adopted  by  the  school  committee  to  the  effect 
that  children  under  the  age  of  seven  years  could 
not  enter  the  school  except  at  the  beginning  of 
the  fall  term  or  within  three  or  four  weeks 
thereafter,  unless  qualified  to  enter  classes  ex- 
isting in  the  school  at  the  time  of  entry,  was 
reasonable,  and  that  a  noncompliance  with  such 
rule  would  be  a  ground  for  exclusion.  Alvord 
V.  Chester,  180  Mass.  20.  Compare  Board  of 
Education  ?■.   I'.olton.   85    III.   App.   02. 

Rule  Requiring  Pupils  to  Supply  Wood  for  Fire 
Held  Unreasonable.  —  State  f.  Board  of  Educa- 
tion, 6,i  Wis.  J34.  53  Am.  Rep.  .'8j. 

Rule  Requiring  Pupils  Living  with  Parents  Not 
to  Attend  Parties  Unreasonable.  —  State  v.  Os- 
liorne,  24  Mo.  App.  309.  See  also  Dritt  v.  Snod- 
grass, 66  Mo.  286,  27  Am.  Rep.  343 ;  State  v. 
Osborne,  32  Mo.  App.  536. 

Rule  Requiring  Parent  to  Sign  and  Return 
Report  Reasonable.  —  Bourne  :■.  State,  35  Neb.  r. 

Absence  or  Tardiness.  —  Rules  requiring  regu- 
larity and  promptness  in  attendance  at  school 
on  pain  of  e.xi)ulsion  or  suspension,  except  for 
good  cause,  have  been  held  reasonable.  Russell 
V.  Lynnfield,  116  Mass.  365.  And  this  though 
the  violation  of  the  rule  was  with  the  parent's 
consent.  Burdick  v.  Babcock,  31  Iowa  562; 
King  V.  Jefferson  City  School  Board,  71  Mo. 
628,  36  Am.  Rep.  499 ;  Ferriter  v.  Tyler,  48  Vt. 
444.  21  Am.  Rep.  133.  See  also  Churchill  v. 
Fewkes,  13  III.  App.  520;  Curry  v.  Lasell  Semi- 
nary Co.,  168  Mass.  7. 

.\  rule  barring  the  doors  of  the  schoolhouse 
for  tardiness  to  little  children  coming  a  great 
distance  in  winter,  is  unreasonable.  Thompson 
V.  Beaver,  63  111.  353. 

But  a  rule  requiring  tardy  pupils  to  remain 
cither  in  the  hall  of  the  school  building,  which 
is  provided  with  heat,  or  in  the  office  of  the 
principal,  until  the  opening  exercises,  lasting 
from  ten  to  fifteen  minutes,  are  concluded,  in 
order  that  such  exercises  may  not  be  interrupted 
or  disturbed,  is  in  itself  a  reasonable  regulation. 
Fertich  v.  Michencr.  iii  Ind.  472,  60  Am.  Rep. 
700. 

Rule  Making  Male  Teachers  Only  Eligible  u 
Principals  of  Grammar  Schools  for  Boys  Held  Rea- 
sonable. —  Com.  T'.  Board  of  Public  Education, 
187  Pa.  St.  70.  See  also  Com.  v.  Jenks,  154  Pa. 
St.  ,7^8. 

Rule  Requiring  Experience  on  Part  of  flupervit- 
ing  Principal  Held  Reasonable.  —  Com.  v.  Jenks, 
154  Pa.  St.  368,  32  W.  N.  C.  (Pa.)   207.     See 
also  Sherry  v.  Sheppard,  12  Pa.  Co.  Ct.  168. 
Volume  XXV. 


lext-books  and  Courses  of  Study. 


SCHOOLS. 


Text  'books. 


such  cases  the  teacher  must  act,  and  his  action  is  binding  until  the  board 
directs  otherwise.*  But  against  the  order  of  the  board  of  trustees  the  teacher 
cannot  enforce  his  rules. ^ 

V.  Text-books  and  Courses  of  Study  —  1.  Text-books  —  a.  Power  of 
Lechslatuke  to  KsiAHLlsii  UNIFORM  SERIES.  —  In  the  absence  of  any 
constitutional  inhibition,  the  state  legislatures  have  power  to  establish  a 
uniform  series  of  text-books  to  be  taught  in  the  public  schools."*  And  to  this 
end  the  legislature  may  confer  upon  a  particular  publisher  the  exclusive 
privilege  of  furnishing  a  series  of  books,  either  directly  to  the  patrons  of  the 
school,'*  or  to  designated  school  of^cers  from  whom  the  patrons  will  be  required 
to  purchase  at  a  designated  price. ^ 

b.  Change  of  Series.  —  Provision  for  changing  text-books  is  made  by 
statute  in  some  jurisdictions,  with  restrictions  in  some  instances  as  to  the 
number  of  changes  to  be  made  within  a  given  time.*     But  it  has  been  held 


Recording  Regulation  Not  Essential  to  Its 
Validity.  — In  Alvord  r.  Chester,  i8o  Mass.  20, 
it  was  held  not  to  be  essential  to  the  validity 
of  a  rule  that  it  should  be  recorded  in  the  per- 
manent record  book  of  the  school  committee  as 
directed  by  statute.  To  same  effect  see  Russell 
f.  Lynnfield,  116  Mass.  365;  Fertich  v.  Mich- 
tner.  1 1 1   Ind.  472,  60  Am.  Rep.  709. 

What  Are  Reasonable  Rules  a  Question  of  Law. 
—  Thompson  v.  Beaver,  63  111.  353  ;  Roberson  v. 
Troutt,  17  111.  App.  386;  Fertich  v.  Michener, 
1 1 1  Ind.  472,  60  Am.  Rep.  709  ;  State  v.  Vander- 
bilt,   116  Ind.  II,  9  Am.  St.  Rep.  820. 

1.  Power  of  Teacher  to  Make  Rules.  —  Sheehan 
V.  Sturges,  53  Conn.  481  ;  Sherman  v.  Charles- 
town,  8  Cush.  (Mass.)  163;  Russell  v.  Lynnfield, 
116  Mass.  366;  Hodgkins  v.  Rockport,  105  Mass. 
476;  Huse  V.  Lowell,  10  Allen  (Mass.)  150; 
Kidder  v.  Chellis,  59  N.  H.  473  ;  Danenhoffer 
z\  State,  69  Ind.  295,  35  Am.  Rep.  216;  Deskins 
V.  Gose,  85  Mo.  485,  55  .^m.  Dec.  387  ;  State  v. 
Hamilton,  42  Mo.  App.  24  ;  State  v.  Randall,  79 
Mo.  App.  226:  Metcalf  v.  State,  21  Tex.  App. 
174;  State  V.  Burton,  45  Wis.  150,  30  Am.  Rep. 
706. 

2.  Parker  v.  School  Dist.  No.  38,  5  Lea 
(Tenn.)   525. 

Duty  of  Teacher  to  Familiarize  Himself  with 
Rules.  —  McLellan  7'.  St.  Louis  Public  Schools, 
15  Mo.  App.  362:  Ellis  V.  North  Carolina  Deaf, 
etc..  Inst.,  68  N.  Car.  427. 

3.  Legislative  Power  to  Establish  Uniform  Series 
of  Text-books.  —  State  v.  Haworth,  122  Ind. 
462 ;  Baltimore  City  School  Com'rs  v.  State 
Board  of  Education,  26  Md.  505 ;  Curryer  v. 
Merrill,  25  Minn,  i,  33  Am.  Rep.  450;  Leeper 
f.  State.  103  Tenn.  500. 

4.  Authorizing  Contract  with  Particular  Pub- 
lisher. —  State  V.  Haworth,  122  Ind.  462; 
Leeper  v.  State,  103  Tenn.  500.  See  also  Ban- 
croft V.  Thayer,  5  Sawy.  (U.  S.)   502. 

For  decisions  to  the  effect  that  such  privi- 
lege granted  to  the  publisher  is  not  a  monopoly, 
see  the  title  Monopolies  .\xd  Corporate  Trusts. 
vol.  20.  p.  865. 

Contract  to  Furnish  Books  During  Pleasure  of 
Board.  —  Ivison  f.  School  Com'rs,  39  Fed.  Rep. 

Execution  of  Bond  by  Publisher.  —  Effingham 
"'.  Olson,  48  Kan.  565;  Johnson  v.  Ginn,  105 
Ky.  654;  Com.  v.  Ginn,  (Ky.  1901)  63  S.  W. 
Rep.  467. 

6.   Baltimore    City    School    Com'rs    v.    State 


Board  of  Education,  26  Md.  505  ;  Hartwell  v. 
Littleton,  13  Pick.  (Mass.)  229;  Curryer  v. 
Merrill.  25  Minn,  i,  ^i  Am.  Rep.  450. 

6.  Statutory  Provisions  for  Changing  Text- 
books. —  People  r.  Board  of  Education,  175  111. 
9  ;  Jones  v.  Board  of  Education,  88  Mich.  371  ; 
State  c'.  State  Board  of  Education,  18  Nev. 
173;  State  f.  Board  of  Education,  35  Ohio  St. 
368. 

Power  of  State  Board  to  Reconsider  Before 
Adoption  by  District  Board.  —  But  in  State  v. 
State  Board  of  Education,  18  Nev.  173,  it  was 
held  that,  notwithstanding  a  statute  limiting  the 
time  within  which  a  change  might  be  made,  a 
state  board  of  education  had  the  power  to  re- 
consider its  action  in  prescribing  a  certain  series 
of  text-books,  provided  it  did  so  before  the 
series  was   adopted   by  the  district   board. 

Power  to  Reconsider  at  Same  Session  in  Absence 
of  Statutory  Limitation.  —  State  v.  Womack,  4 
\\'ash.   19. 

Prior  Notice  of  Proposed  Change  Required.  — 
People  V.  State  Board  of  Education,  49  Cal. 
685:  Greene  ?■.  Board  of  Education,  131  Cal. 
165. 

Action  of  Board  in  Changing  Text-books  Held 
Not  Reviewable  by  Writ  of  Certiorari.  —  People 
t .  Rn;ird  of  I'-ducaiion,  54  Cal.  375. 

Demand  as  Prerequisite  to  Mandamus  to  Prohibit 
Changes  of  Text-books.  —  Dobbs  v.  Stauffer,  24 
Kan.   127. 

Mandamus  Denied  to  Publisher.  —  In  Effing- 
ham V.  Hamilton,  68  Miss.  523.  it  was  held  that 
the  Mississippi  statute  providing  for  uniform 
series  of  text-books  in  public  schools  Was  in- 
tended for  the  benefit  and  protection  of  the 
people  and  not  of  the  publisher,  and  hence  a 
publisher  whose  books  had  been  selected  by  the 
proper  committee  and  who  had  under  the  statute 
the  right  to  have  a  contract  made  with  him  by 
the  county  superintendent  of  schools  was  not 
entitled  to  a  writ  of  mandamus  to  compel  the 
superintendent  to  make  such  contract,  where  it 
appears  that  the  superintendent  had  entered 
into  a  contract  with  other  publishers,  and 
patrons  of  the  school  had  incurred  the  expense 
of  i)rocuring  the  books  of  the  latter  publishers. 

Request  for  Injunction  by  Single  Patron.  — 
.\n  injunction  against  an  illcg.-il  change  can  be 
granted  at  the  instance  of  a  single  patron  of  a 
school,  only  to  the  extent  of  protecting  his 
.special  and  individual  interests.  School-Dist. 
No.  I.  -■.  Shadduck,  25  Kan.  467. 
ag  Volume  XXV. 


Text-books  and  Courses  of  Study. 


SCHOOLS. 


Religious  Ezercisea 


that  where  the  statute  does  not  authorize  the  making  of  a  contract  with  a 
publisher,  but  merely  provides  for  the  selection  of  a  series  of  school  books  at 
certain  fixed  intervals,  and  commands  their  use  in  the  districts  under  a  penalty, 
the  legislature  may  change  the  series  at  pleasure,  and  any  contract  to  the 
contrary  is  invalid.* 

c.  Delegation  of  Power  of  Adoption  or  Change,  —  The  legisla- 
ture may  delegate  the  power  of  adoption  or  change  of  text-books  to  a  state 
board  *  or  to  a  local  board  or  committee.^ 

d.  Free  Text-books.  —  Statutes  prescribe  sometimes  that  the  books 
shall  be  furnished  free  of  cost  to  parent  or  pupil.*  But  a  school  board  has 
not  the  power  to  purchase  and  furnish  free  text-books  in  the  absence  of  special 
legislation.* 

2.  Courses  of  Study.  —  Under  statutes  in  some  of  the  states  vesting  in  the 
school  board  the  power  to  determine  what  branches  shall  be  taught  other  than 
those  expressly  prescribed  by  statute,  it  has  been  held  that  they  have  authority 
to  permit  the  teaching  of  Latin  and  the  modern  languages,  provided  that  the 
instruction  given  in  the  various  branches  taught  shall  be  in  the  English 
language.® 

3.  Religious  Exercises.  —  Exercises  by  a  teacher  in  a  public  school  in  the 
presence  of  the  pupils,  consisting  of  the  reading  of  passages  from  the  Bible, 
and  in  the  singing  of  songs  and  hymns,  and  offering  prayer  to  the  Deity  in 
accordance  with  the  doctrines  or  beliefs  of  sectarian  churches  or  religious 
organizations,  are  held  to  be  forbidden  by  the  constitutions  of  some  of  the 
states.''      The  constitutionality  of  the  practice  of  opening  school  exercises 


1.  Bancroft  v.  Thayer,  5  Sawy.  (U.  S.)  502. 
See  also  Ivison  v.  School  Com'rs,  39  Fed.  Rep. 
735- 

2.  Stale  V.  Haworth,  122  Ind.  462;  Baltimore 
City  School  Com'rs  v.  State  Board  of  Education, 
26  Md.  505;  Curryer  v.  Merrill,  25  Minn,  i, 
3i  Am.  Rep.  450  ;  State  v.  State  Board  of  Edu- 
cation, 18  Xey.  173. 

State  Text-book  Commission.  —  State  v.  Board 
of  lldiication,  59  Kan.  501  ;  Leeper  v.  State,  103 
Tenn.  500. 

In  Missouri,  under  Revised  Statutes  of  1879, 
§§  7087-7089,  the  duty  of  selecting  text-books 
devolved  upon  certain  school  officers  in  each 
county.  Prior  to  that  the  township  boards  of 
education  had  the  power  to  determine  the  books 
to  be  used.  Gen.  Stat.  1865,  §  i6,  p.  261.  But 
under  the  Act  of  April  4,  1891,  the  Missouri 
School  Book  Commission  was  created  and  or- 
ganized with  the  power  to  select  text-books  and 
to  make  contracts  for  supplying  such  books  to 
the  pupils.  The  act  creating  this  commission 
has  been  held  not  to  be  in  violation  of  section  4 
of  article  n  of  the  state  constitution,  providing 
that  ■'  the  supervision  of  instruction  in  the  pub- 
lic schools  shall  be  vested  in  the  board  of  edu- 
cation, whose  powers  and  duties  shall  be  pre- 
scribed by  law."     State  v.  Bronson,  115  Mo.  271. 

3.  School  Trustees  v.  People,  87  111.  303.  29 
Am.  Rep.  S5  ;  Third  Ward  School  Dist.  v.  City 
Board  of  School  Directors,  23  La.  Ann.  152; 
Jones  r.  Board  of  Education,  88  Mich.  371  ; 
Effingham  7:  Hamilton,  68  Miss.  523;  State  v. 
Board  of  Education,  18  Xev.  173  :  State  z:  Board 
of  Education.  35  Ohio  St.  368  :  Francis  v.  Alle- 
gheny School  Dist.,  24  Pittsb.  Leg.  J.  N.  S. 
fPa.)  to;  Glynn  r.  School  Dist.,  5  Lack.  Leg. 
N.  rPa.-i  31.^. 

Power  of  Trustees  in  Absence  of  Express  Statute. 
—  It  has  been  held  that  where  the  legislature 
has  failed  to  prescribe  a  uniform  series  of  text- 


books for  use  in  the  common  schools  of  the  state 
and  has  failed  to  give  special  authority  to  any 
officer  or  board  to  do  so,  the  trustees  of  the 
school  district  have  the  right,  under  the  general 
powers  vested  in  them  by  law,  to  prescribe  a 
rule  designating  text-books  for  use  in  the  com- 
mon schools  of  their  districts.  Campana  v 
Calderhead.  17  Mont.  548. 

Constitutional  Provision  Vesting  Power  in  Local 
Board.  — People  r.  Board  of  Education,  55  Cal. 
331- 

Adoption  at  Regular  Meeting  Required.  — 
People  r.  Frost,  32  III.  App.  242 ;  Butler  v 
Shirley  Tp.  School  Dist.,  15  Pa.  Co.  Ct.  291  ; 
Barber  v.  Newbaker,  19  Pa.  Co.  Ct.  644;  Ma- 
loney  r.  Rogers,  6  Kulp  (Pa.)  289.  But  where 
it  appears  that  a  meeting  was  had  for  this  pur- 
pose, it  will  be  presumed  that  the  meeting  was 
regular.     People  v.  Frost,  32  111.  App.  242. 

4.  Board  of  Education  z'.  Detroit,  80  Mich. 
548. 

Provision  for  Furnishing  Books  to  Poor  Children 

—  Shell)y  County  Council  v.  State,  155  Ind.  216. 
6.   Jackson  School  Tp.  v.  Hadley,  59  Ind.  534  ; 

Honey  Creek  School  Tp.  v.  Barnes,  119  Ind. 
213. 

Act  Authorizing  Purchase  of  Text-books  Held 
Unconstitutional.  — Collins  f.  Henderson,  11 
Bush   (Ky.)   74. 

6.  Power  of  School  Board  to  Fix  Courses  of  Study, 

—  Powell  c".  Board  of  Education,  97  111.  375, 
37  Am.  Rep.  123  ;  Board  of  Education  v.  Welch, 
51  Kan.  792.  See  also  Stuart  v.  School  Dist, 
No.   I,   30   Mich.  69. 

German  to  Be  Taught  upon  Proper  Demand  by 
Parents.  — School   Com'rs  z'.  State,   129  Ind.    14. 

7.  Religious  Exercises.  —  State  z:  Scheve, 
(Xeb.   1002)   91    X.   Vv.   Rep.  846. 

Reading  of  Bible  in  Schools   Forbidden   under 
Wisconsin  Constitution. —  State  z\  District  School 
Board,  76  Wis.  177,  20  Am.  St.  Rep.  41. 
Volume  XXV. 


Bohool  DiBtricts. 


SCHOOLS. 


Nature  and  Purpose. 


with  reading  from  the  Scriptures  has,  however,  been  generally  upheld.* 

VI.  School  Districts  —  1.  Nature  and  Purpose.  —  School  districts  are  politi- 
cal subdivisions  within  a  state,  created  for  the  purpose  of  maintaining  and 
administering  the  system  of  public  education.  They  are  not  bodies  politic  or 
corporate  with  the  general  powers  of  corporations,  but  may  be  considered  as 
(///^^/-corporations,  variable  in  organization  and  extent  and  having  corporate 
existence  by  force  only  of  their  public  functions,  and,  therefore,  the  strict 
principles  of  law  respecting  corporations  generally  cannot,  in  all  cases,  be 
applied  to  these  aggregate  bodies,  created  usually  by  statute.* 

Whether  a  Municipal  Corporation.  —  Although  a  school  district  possesses  cor- 
porate capacity,  it  does  not,  as  a  general  rule,  fall  within  the  definition  of 
a  municipal  corporation.^  But  a  school  district  \z  sometimes  held  to  be  a 
municipal  corporation  within  the  contemplation  of  certain  constitutional  or 
statutory  provisions.* 

School  Districts  Independent  of  Municipality.  —  Under  the  Common-School  systems 
adopted  in  many  of  the  states,  schools  in  towns  and  cities  are  made  inde- 
pendent of  the  municipal  governments  of  the  cities  and  towns  in  which  they 
are  situated,  and  hence  a  school  district  may  be  entirely  distinct  from  the 


municipality,  though  their  limits  and  bound 


anes  are 


;  the  same.^     Sometimes, 


1.  Kule  Requiring  Reading  of  Particular  Ver- 
sion. —  In  Maine  it  was  held  in  Donahoe  v. 
Richards,  38  Me.  379,  61  Am.  Dec.  256,  that  a 
requirement  by  the  superintending  committee 
that  the  Protestant  version  of  the  Bible  should 
be  read  in  the  schools  by  scholars  able  to  read 
was  in  violation  of  no  constitutional  provision 
and  was  binding  upon  all  members  of  the 
schools,  though  composed  of  divers  religious 
sects.  To  the  same  effect  see  Nessle  v.  Hum,  2 
Ohio  Dec.  60,  i  Ohio  N.  P.  140;  Stevenson  v. 
Hanyon,  7  Pa.  Dist.  585,  4  Lack.  Leg.  N.  (Pa.)' 

215- 

In  Massachusetts  it  has  been  held  that  a  rule 
requiring  public  schools  to  be  opened  with  read- 
ing from  the  Bible  and  prayer,  and  requiring 
the  pupils  to  bow  their  heads  during  prayer, 
unless  exception  was  requested  by  a  pupil's 
parent,  was  not  unconstitutional  and  unreason- 
able. Spiller  V.  Woburn,  12  Allen  (Mass.)  127. 
See  also  McCormick  v.  Burt,  95  111.  263,  35 
Am.  Rep.  163  ;  Com.  v.  Cook,  7  Am.  L.  Reg.  417. 

In  lozici  a  statute  in  these  words,  "  The 
Bible  shall  not  be  excluded  from  any  school  or 
institution  in  this  state,  nor  shall  any  pupil  be 
required  to  read  it  contrary  to  the  wishes  of  his 
parent  or  guardian,"  has  been  held  not  to  be 
unconstitutional.  Moore  v.  Monroe,  64  Iowa 
367,   52  Am.  Rep.  444- 

Resolution  of  Board  Discontinuing  Bible  Read- 
ing Final.  —  Board  of  Education  z'.  Minor,  2^ 
Ohio  St.  211,  13  Am.  Rep.  2^,^,;  Board  of  Edu- 
cation V.  Pulse,  10  Ohio  Dec.  17,  7  Ohio  N. 
P.   58. 

2.  Nature  and  Purpose  of  School  Districts  — 
Alabama.-  -School  (Tom'rs  v.  Aikin,  5  Port. 
(Ala.)    169. 

Dakota.  —  Farmers,  etc.,  Nat.  Bank  t'.  School 
Dist.  No.  53,  6  Dak.  255. 

Illinois.  —  Bush  v.  Shipman,  5  111.  186; 
School  Trustees  v.  Tatman,  13  111.  2~  ;  People 
V.  School  Trustees,  78  111.    136. 

Ka7tsas.  —  Beach  v.  Leahy,  1 1  Kan.  23 ; 
Freeland  ?■.  Stillman,  49  Kan.  197;  State  v. 
Wilson,   65   Kan.   237. 

Massac h  usetts.  —  Fourth  School-Dist.  v.  Wood, 
13  Mass.  193- 


Michigan.  —  Maynard  v.  Woodard,  36  Mich. 
423. 

New  Jersey.  —  State  v.  Drainage,  etc.,  Com'rs, 
41  N.  J.  L.  154;  State  v.  Deshler,  25  N.  J.  L. 
177;   Landis  v.  Ashworth,  57  N.  J.  L.  509. 

New  York.  —  Horton  v.  Garrison,  2^  Barb. 
(N.  Y.)  176;  Rapelye  v.  Van  Sickler,  i  Edm. 
Sel.    Cas.    (N.   Y.)    175. 

North  Dakota.  —  Capital  Bank  v.  School 
Dist.  No.  53,  I   N.  Dak.  495. 

Ohio.  —  State  v.  Powers,  38  Ohio  St.  54. 

Oregon.  —  State  v.  Hulin,  2   Oregon   307. 

Pennsylvania.  —  Wharton  f .  School  Direct- 
ors, 42  Pa.  St.  358;  Com.  V.  Beamish,  81  Pa. 
St.  391  ;  Ford  v.  Kendall  Borough  School  Dist., 
121   Pa.  St.  543. 

Wisconsin.  —  School  Dist.  No.  3  -'.  Macloon, 
4  Wis.  79 ;  Stroud  v.  Stevens  Point,  37  Wis. 
367. 

See  also  School  Dist.  No.  7  v.  Thompson,  5 
Minn.  280;  Allen  f.  School  Dist.  No.  i,  23  Mo. 
418. 

School  District  Made  Body  Corporate  by  Statute. 
—  Whitmore  ?'.  Hogan.  j2  Me.  564. 

School  Held  to  Be  Public  Corporation.  —  An 
academy  created  by  statute  to  be  under  the 
management  of  trustees,  if  one  of  the  common 
schools  of  the  state  and  designed  to  carry  out 
its  part  in  the  public  school  system,  is  a  public 
corporation.      State  v.   Vaughan.   99   Mo.   332. 

3.  People  7'.  School  Trustees,  78  111.  136; 
Freeland  v.  Stillman,  49  Kan.  197 ;  Yellow 
Pine  Co.  v.  Board  of  Education,  (Supm.  Ct. 
Spec.  T.)  15  Misc.  (N.  Y.)  58;  Union  Pac.  R. 
Co.  V.  Ryan,  2  Wyo.  408.  See  also  the  title 
Municipal  Corporations,  vol.   20,   p.   1130. 

4.  State  V.  Wilson,  65  Kan.  237;  In  re  Dal- 
ton,  61  Kan.  257;  State  v.  Grimes,  7  Wash. 
270 ;  Maxon  v.  School  Dist.  No.  34,  5  Wash. 
142. 

5.  State  r.  Ogan.  (Ind.  1902")  63  N.  E.  Rep. 
227  ;  Knowles  v.  Board  of  Education,  33  Kan. 
692 ;  Heller  v.  Stremmel,  52  Mo.  309 :  Water 
Supply  Co.  v.  ."Mbuquerque  City,  9  N.  Mex. 
441  ;  Yellow  Pine  Co.  v.  Board  of  Education, 
(Supm.  Ct.  Spec.  T.)  15  Misc.  (N.  Y.)  58,  dis- 
tinguishing Bell  V.  New  York,  105  N.  Y.  136. 

Volume  XXV. 


School  Districts. 


SCHOOLS. 


Formation  ana  Organization. 


however,  the  school  district  is,  by  the  express  terms  of  the  statute,  made  a  part 
of  the  municipal  government.* 

2.  Formation  and  Organization  —  a.  Authority  to  Create —  (i)  In 
General.  — The  primary  authority  to  lay  off  territory  into  school  districts  is 
in  the  legislature,*  and  this  without  the  assent  of  the  inhabitants.-"* 

(2)  Delegation  of  Authority  to  Ojfieials.  —  But  such  power  may  be  delegated 
to  a  subordinate  body  or  official.* 

Conclusiveness  of  Action  of  OflBcers.  —  111  the  performance  of  the  duties  of  defin- 
ing the  boundaries  and  organizing  school  districts  under  some  of  the  statutes, 
school  trustees  or  other  officials  intrusted  with  the  duty  may,  it  is  held,  use 
a  wide  discretion  ;  and  the  courts  will  not  interfere  with  their  action  except  in 
palpable  cases  of  abuse  of  discretion  or  violation  of  law.* 

(3)  Submission  of  Question  to  Vote  of  Inhabitants.  —  In  some  cases  the 
power  to  determine  and  define  school  districts  is  given  to  the  inhabitants  of 
the  town  or  district  where  the  school  district  is  proposed  to  be  created.®  So 
it  has  been  held  that  though  the  action  of  an  official  in  defining  the  territorial 
boundaries  of  a  school  district  will  not  of  itself  constitute  the  district  and  the 
inhabitants  a  valid  organization,  yet  the  legislature  may  permit  the  inhabit- 
ants of  the  territory  to  accept  such  organization,  and  by  such  acceptance 
under  legislative  sanction  the  corporate  entity  becomes  complete.'  But  in 
some  states  the  jurisdiction  of  the  officer  vested  with  the  power  of  organizing 

1.  Stroud  V.   Stevens   Point,    t,-/    Wis.   367. 

2.  Power  of  Legislature  to  Form  School  Districts. 
—  Schotield  -c.  Watkins,  22.  111.  66;  Scliool 
Dist.  No.  Thirteen  v.  Dean^  17  Mich.  22.2,; 
School  Dist.  Xo.  17  v.  Zediker,  4  Okla.  599; 
Com.  V.  Gardner,  23  Pa.  St.  417;  Kuhn  v. 
Board  of  ir.ducation,  4  W.  Va.  499. 

Act  Creating  Districts  Void  for  Uncertainty  as 
to  Boundaries.  —  Com.  v.  Gardner,  23  Pa.  St. 
417;   Williams  :•.  Crook,   17    Pa.   St.   199. 

Size  of  District.  —  In  the  absence  of  consti- 
tutional limitations  no  restriction  is  placed  on 
the  size  of  a  school  district  created  by  the 
legislature.  Presque  Isle  County  v.  Thompson, 
(.C.  C.  A.)  61  Fed.  Rep.  914. 

3.  School  Dist.  No.  17  v.  Zediker,  4  Okla. 
599 ;  Kuhn  v.  Board  of  Education,  4  W.  Va. 
499. 

4.  Delegation  of  Power  to  Form  School  Districts. 
--Grove  v.  Board  of  School  Inspectors,  20  111. 
53^;  Munn  V.  Soap  Creek  School  Tp.,  no  Iowa 
652. 

Power  Vested  in  County  Commissioners'  Court.  — 
Reynolds  Land,  etc.,  Co.  v.  McCabe,  T2  Tex. 
57- 

Under  this  statute  it  has  been  held  that  the 
commissioners  have  no  authority  to  form  into 
a  district  territory  attached  to  the  county  for 
judicial  and  land  surveying  purposes.  Rhom- 
herg  V.   McLaren.  2  Tex.   Civ.  App.  391. 

Power  Vested  in  County  Superintendent.  —  Bay 
State  Live-Stock  Co.  v.  Bing.  ■;  i  Xeb.  570; 
Color  V.   Khodn   School   Tp..   6   S.   D;ik.  640. 

Appeal  from  County  Superintendent  to  County 
Commissioners.  —  State  v.  Sccrest,  60  Kan.  641. 

Appeal  to  County  and  State  Superintendent.  — 
Minn  V.  Soap  Crock  Sclionl  Tp.,    no   Iowa  65-. 

Appeal  Giviner  Jurisdiction  De  Novo.  —  Munn 
v.  Soap  Creek  School  Tp..  iio  Iowa  652.  Com- 
f^oic   State  T'.   .'^ccrost..   Go   Kan.   641. 

Priority  of  Oreanizntion.  —  It  Ims  been  held 
that  where  two  independent  districts  were 
organized,  embracing  certain  common  territory, 
such  territory  should  be  included  in  the  limits 
of    the    district    whose    organization    was    first 


38 


commenced.       Sheldon     Independent     Dist.    v. 
Sioux   County,   51    Iowa  658. 

5.  School  Directors  v.  School  Trustees,  66 
111.  247 ;  Thompson  v.  Beaver,  63  111.  353  ;  Cle- 
ment V.  Everest,  29  Mich.  19  ;  Howell  v.  Shan- 
non, (Mich.  1902)  90  X.  W.  Rep.  410;  School 
Dist.  No.   17  V.  Zediker,  4  Okla.  599. 

In  Lord  v.  Every,  38  Mich.  405,  it  was  held 
that  there  should  be  some  special  and  extraordi- 
nary reason  to  justify  interference  by  quo  war- 
ranto with  the  organization  of  a  school  dis- 
trict, where  the  statute  has  provided  a  speedier 
remedy  by  an  appeal  from  the  district  board  to 
the  township  board. 

In  Louisiuha.  under  a  statute  pm-iding  that 
the  proper  official  shall  divide  the  parish  into 
school  districts  of  such  proper  and  convenient 
area  and  shape  as  will  best  accommodate  the 
children  of  the  parish,  it  has  been  held  that 
residents  of  a  school  district  who  do  not 
show  that  their  own  children  are  incommoded 
or  that  their  taxes  are  increased  by  the  man- 
ner in  which  the  boundaries  of  a  school  dis- 
trict have  been  fixed  are  without  right  to 
resist  a  tax  levied  in  the  district  on  the  ground 
that  the  boundaries  have  not  been  so  fixed  as  to 
accommodate  the  school  children.  Burnham  v. 
Police  Jury,  107  La.  513.  See  also  Stephens 
V.   P.uic,    23  Tex.  Civ.   App.  491. 

Finality  of  Decision  of  Officer  to  Whom  Appeal 
Is  Allowed  by  Statute.  —  Munn  v.  Soap  Creek 
School  Tp.,  no  Iowa  652;  Hamilton  v.  Frette, 
180   111.   190. 

Inability  of  Board  Rendering  Decision  on  Appeal 
to  Rehear  Without  Notice.  —  State  v.  Secrest,  60 
Knn.   (\\\. 

6.  Submission  of  Question  to  Vote  of  Inhabitants. 
—  Tucker  r.  Wentworth.  35  Me.  393  ;  Fry  v. 
School  Dist.  Number  One,  4  Cush.  (Mass.) 
250 :  School  Dist.  No.  2  7'.  Gilman.  3  N.  H. 
ir,S:    Bull  T'.   Road.   13   Cratt.   (  Va. )    78- 

Provision  fir  Oreranization  at  Meeting  of  Voters 
of  Territory  Called  by  Designated  Number  of  Tax- 
payers.  —  Ferryman  v.  Bethune,  89  Mo.   158. 

7.  Landis  v.  Ashworth,  57  N.  J.  L.  509. 

Volume  XXV. 


jchool  Districts. 


SCHOOLS. 


Formation  and  Organization 


districts  from  portions  of  a  county  not  previously  organized  into  districts  is 
not  dependent  on  the  presentation  of  a  petition  or  other  expression  of  the  will 
of  the  voters  of  the  territory  to  be  organized.* 

b.  Requisites  as  to  District  Limits.  —  It  lias  been  held  that  the 
power  of  forming  school  districts  can  be  executed  only  by  a  geographical 
division  of  the  territory  and  not  merely  by  enumerating  the  several  individuals 
who  are  to  compose  the  district,*  and  in  some  states  the  districts  must,  as  a 
general  rule,  coincide  in  boundaries  with  the  divisions  of  counties  into  town- 
ships.'* But  in  the  absence  of  any  expression  of  legislative  purpose  to  the 
effect  that  school  districts  must  bear  any  fixed  relation  to  any  other  political 
or  geographical  subdivision  of  the  state,  the  mere  establishment  of  a  township 
whose  lines  divide  an  existing  school  district  will  not,  ipso  facto,  dismember 
the  district.* 

Whether  Territory  Must  Be  Contiguous.  —  In  the  formation  of  school  districts  it  has 
been  held  necessary  that  the  territory  should  be  contiguous  and  that  all  the 
persons  should  be  wuthin  continuous  geographical  lines.  ^ 

Limitations  as  to  Size.  —  It  is  sometimes  provided  by  statute  that  a  school 
district  shall  not  cover  more  than  a  prescribed  area.^ 

c  Presumption  of  Legality  of  Formation.  —  The  legality  of  the 
original  formation  of  a  district  will  be  presumed  without  resort  to  record 
evidence  where  it  has  been  in  continued  existence  for  a  number  of  years,  with 
the  acquiescence  of  the  inhabitants  therein. '^ 

Presumption  under  Statute.  —  Under  statute  in  some  jurisdictions  it  is  pro- 
vided that  a  school  district  shall  be  presumed  to  be  legally  organized  when  it 
shall  have  exercised  the  franchises  and  privileges  of  a  district  for  a  specified 
term  of  years.^  Such  provision  has  been  held  to  establish  a  conclusive  pre- 
sumption of  law  in  the  naf'"'2  of  a  statute  of  limitation. ** 

1.  Bay  State  Live-Stock  Co.  v.  Bing.  51  Nel). 
570  :  Coler  v.  Rhoda  School  Tp.,  6  S.  Dak.  640. 

2.  Geographical  Division  of  Territory  Held 
Necessary.  —  Independent  School  Dist.  v.  Board 
of  Supervisors,  25  Iowa  305  ;  Perry  v.  Dover, 
\2  Pick.  (Mass.)  206;  Withington  v.  Eveleth, 
7  Pick.  (Mass.)  106;  Nye  v.  Marion,  7  Gray 
(Mass.)  244;  School  Dist.  No.  3  v.  Wallace, 
75  Mo.  App.  317;  School  Dist.  No.  3  v.  Aid- 
rich,  13  N.  H.  139;  Sawyer  v.  Williams,  25  Vt. 
311;  Gray  v.  Sheldon,  8  Vt.  403.  See  also 
Alden  v.  Rounseville,  7  Met.  (Mass.)  218;  Wil- 
son V.  School  Dist.  No.  4,  32  N.  H.  118; 
Weeks  v.  Batchelder,  41    Vt.   317. 

Subsequent  Ratification  After  Making  and  Re- 
cording Division.  —  Sawyer  v.  Willinnis.  25  Vt. 
311.  See  also  Alden  v.  Rounseville.  7  Met. 
(Mass.)  219;  Whitniire  v.  State,  (Tex.  Civ. 
App.    1898)    47    S.    W.   Rep.    293- 

3.  Districts  Coinciding  in  Boundaries  with 
Townships.  —  Russell  v.  District  Tp.,  97  Iowa 
573  :  Union  Dist.  Tp.  v.  Greene  Independent 
Dist.,  41  Iowa  30;  Conover  v.  Parker,  57  N.J. 
L.  631  ;  Wilkins  Tp.  School  Dist.,  70  Pa.  St. 
108;  Barre  v.  School  Dist.  No.  13,  67  Vt.  108. 
See  Troy  Dist.  Tp.  v.  Doyle  Dist.  Tp.,  53  Iowa 
667. 

In  Iowa  an  Exception  to  This  Rule  Exists 
under  a  statute  authorizing  the  annexation  of 
part  of  the  territory  of  a  school  corporation  to 
another  where  by  reason  of  natural  obstacles 
the  particular  locality  is  prevented  from  being 
properly  provided  for  under  the  organization 
of  township  districts.  Union  Dist.  Tp.  v. 
Greene  Independent  Dist.,  41  Iowa  30.  To  the 
•ame  effect  see  Independent  School  Dist.,  19 
Pa.  Co.  Ct.  452:  Mt.  Pleasant  Tp.  v.  Independ- 

25  C.  of  L.— 3  33 


ent  School  Dist.,  10  Pa.  Co.  Ct.  588.     See  also 
Williams  v.  Crook,    17    Pa.   St.    199. 

Nor  does  the  restriction  apply  to  independent 
districts  authorized  in  the  case  of  towns  or 
cities  of  a  certain  size.  Union  Dist.  Tp.  v. 
Greene  Independent  Dist.,  41   Iowa  30. 

4.  Conover  v.   Parker,  57  N.  J.  L.  631. 
Division    Held   to   Create   a   Joint   District.  — 

State  V.   Rice.   35    Wis.   178. 

5.  In  re  Heidler,  122  Pa.  St.  653;  Keystone 
Lumber  Co.  v.  Bayfield,  94  Wis.  491.  Compare 
Scoville  ''.  Mattoon,  55  Conn.  144;  Alden  v. 
Rounseville,  7  Met.   (Mass.)   218. 

6.  Keystone  Lumber  Co.  v.  Bayfield,  94  Wis. 
491. 

7.  Presumption  of  Legality  of  Formation.  — 
Stuart  f.  School  Dist.  No.  i,  30  Mich.  69;  Rice 
V.  McClelland,  58  Mo.  116;  State  z\  School 
Dist.  No.  24.  13  Neb.  78;  Robie  v.  Sedgwick, 
4  Abb.  App.  Dec.  (N.  Y.)  73;  Bowen  v.  King, 
34  Vt.  156;  Sherwin  v.  Bugbee,  16  Vt.  439; 
Thomas  v.  Gibson,  1 1  Vt.  607 ;  State  v.  Wil- 
liams. 27  Vt.  755.  See  also  Clement  v.  Everest, 
29  Mich.  10:  Howell  v.  Shannon,  (Mich.  1902) 
90  N.  W.  Rep.  410. 

Discharge  of  Duties  by  Trustees  as  Prima  Facie 
Evidence  of  Organization. —  Swails  v.  State,  4 
In.l.  516. 

8.  Presque  Isle  County  t'.  Thompson.  (C.  C. 
A.)  61  Fed.  Rep.  914,  decided  under  Michigan 
statute:  Collins  v.  School  Dist.  No.  7.  52  Me. 
522:  School  Dist.  Number  Three  v.  School 
Dist.  Number  One,  6?,  Mich.  51  :  State  v.  School 
Dist.  No.  152.  54  Minn.  213:  State  v.  School 
Dist.   No.  19.  42  Neb.  499. 

9.  State  V.   School    Dist.   No.    152,    54   Minn. 

213- 

Volume  XXV. 


Sohool  Districts. 


SCHOOLS. 


Alteration  of  XouuOarlM. 


(i.  Nor  SuBjKCT  TO  Collateral  Attack.  —  The  regularity  of  the  forma- 
tion  and  organization  of  a  school  district  cannot  be  called  in  question  in  a 
merely  collateral  suit.' 

e.  Formation  and  Organization  Distinguished. — A  distinction  is 
sometimes  drawn  between  the  formation  and  organization  of  school  districts, 
it  being  hjld  that  to  complete  the  organization  there  must  be  an  election  of 
directors  or  other  proper  school  officials.* 

/.  Graded  OR  High  School  Districts.  —  Various  statutory  provisions 
are  made  in  the  different  states  for  the  formation  of  high  or  graded  schools,  or 
high  or  graded  school  districts.'* 

3.  Alteration  of  Boundaries  —  a.  In  General.  —  In  the  absence  of  a  con- 
stitutional limitation,  the  legislature  may  alter  the  boundaries  of  existing 
school  districts  at  pleasure  without  consulting  the  inhabitants.'*  Various 
statutory  provisions  exist  authorizing  the  alteration  of  the  boundaries  of 
existing  school  districts,  as,  for  instance,  by  the  detaching  of  territory  from 
one  and  annexing  it  to  another,  or  by  the  formation  of  new  districts  from 
territory  detached  from  an  old  district,  or  by  the  consolidation  of  two  or  more 
districts  or  parts  of  districts.** 

b.  Creating  School  Districts  in  Towns  and  Cities.  --  By  statutory 


Presumption  Held  Not  Conclusive  Against  Proof 
Df  Fraud,  —  Call   v.  Chadbourne,   46   Me.   206. 

1.  Not  Subject  to  Collateral  Attack. —  School 
Dist.  No.  2  V.  School  Dist.  Xo.  i,  45  Kan.  543; 
Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Wilson,  a  Kan.  22^  ; 
School  Dist.  No.  25  v.  State,  29  Kan.  57;  Voss 
V.  Union  School  Dist.  No.  11,  18  Kan.  467; 
Keweenaw  Assoc,  v.  School  Dist.  No.  i,  98 
Mich.  437;  Stockle  v.  Silsbee,  41  Mich.  615; 
Bird  V.  Perk;ns,  a  Mich.  30  ;  Stuart  v.  School 
Dist.  No.  I,  JO  Mich.  69;  Clement  v.  Everest, 
29  Mich.  19;  Burnhain  v.  Rogers,  167  Mo.  17; 
Stale  V.  Central   Pac.  R.   Co.,  21    Nev.   75. 

2.  School  Dist.  No.  3  v.  Wallace,  75  Mo. 
App.   iM. 

3.  Graded  or  High  School  Districts  —  Arizona. 
—  Sharp  V.  George,  (Ariz.  1896)  46  Pac.  Rep. 
212. 

California.  —  People  v.  Lodi  High  School 
Dist.,  124  Cal.  694;  People  v.  Union  High 
School   Dist.,   loi    Cal.  655. 

Illinois.  —  Gale  v.  Knopf,  193  111.  245;  Peo- 
ple t'.  Bruennemer,  169  111.  482;  School  Trustees 
V.   People,   i6i   111.   146. 

Kansas.  —  Board  of  Education  i'.  Welch,  51 
Kan.  792. 

Kentucky.  —  Hundley  v.  Singleton,  66  S.  W. 
Rep.  279,  23  Ky.  L.  Rep.  2006 ;  Bailey  v. 
Figely.  (Ky.  1899)  52  S.  W.  Rep.  800,  106  Ky. 
725;  Mullins  V.  Andrews,  (Ky.  1898)  45  S.  W. 
Rep.  231  ;  Webb  v.  Smith,  99  Ky.   11. 

Maine.  —  Tucker  v.  Wentworth.  35   Me.  393. 

Michigan.  —  Stuart  7'.  School  Dist.  No.  1,30 
Mich.  69 ;  Keweenaw  Assoc,  z'.  School  Dist. 
No.  I,  98  Mich.  437. 

Nevada.  —  State  r.  Sweeney,  24  Nev.  350. 

Virginia.  —  Bedford  County  v.  Bedford  \\\)i\\ 
School.  92  V'a.   202. 

4.  Power  of  Legislature  to  Alter  Boundaries.  — 
Parker  7-.  Titcomb,  82  Me.  180;  McCormac  v. 
Robeson  County,  90  N.  Car.  441  ;  School  Dist. 
No.  17  7'.  Zediker,  4  Okla.  599:  Com.  v.  Gard- 
ner, 23  Pa.  St.  417;  Raybould  v.  Hardy,  7 
Utah  368.  See  School  Dist.  No.  76  v.  Ryker,  64 
Kan.  612. 

Making  Independent  District  of  City.  —  Bay 
View  School  Dist.  v.  Linscott,  99  Cal.  25. 


District  Created  from  Parts  of  Two  Townships. 

—  Ruinney,  etc.,  Union  School  Dist.  v.  Smart, 
18  N.  H.  268. 

Joint  District  Created  by  New  Township  Lines 
Dividing  Its  Territory. —  State  v.  Rice,  35  Wis. 
178.     See  also   State  v.   Wolf  rem,   25   Wis.  468. 

District  Not  Altered  by  Mere  Change  of  Name. 

—  Robbins  v.  School  Dist.  No.   i,  10  Minn.  340. 
5.  Statutes  Authorizing    Alteration  —  Illinois. 

—  Greenleaf  z\  Township  No.  41,  22  111.  236; 
Grove  v.  Board  of  School  Inspectors,  20  111. 
532. 

[ozva.  —  Albin  z'.  Board  of  Directors,  58 
Iowa  77- 

Kansas.  —  School  Dist.  No.  57  v.  Board  of 
Education,    16   Kan.   536. 

Michigan.  —  People  z'.  Davidson,  2  Dougl. 
(Mich.)    121. 

Minnesota.  —  Connor  v.  Board  of  Education, 
10   Minn.  439. 

Missouri.  —  State  v.  Hill,  152  Mo.  234,  dis- 
tinguishing School  Dist.  No.  i  v.  School  Dist. 
No.  4,  94  Mo.  613;  State  r.  Miller,  65  Mo.  50. 

iVezv  York.  —  People  v.   Hooper, 
Y.)   639. 

North      Carolina.  —  McCormac 
County,  90  N.  Car.  441. 

Ohio.  —  Canton    Union    School 
Ohio   St.    580. 

Te.vas.  —  Porter  v.   State.   78   Tex.   591. 

West  Virginia.  —  Board  of  Education  v. 
Board   of  Education.   30   W.  Va.   424. 

.\nd  see  the  statutes  of  the  various  states. 

Requirement  that  New  District  Contain  Desig- 
nated Number  of  Pupils.  —  .Anderson  v.  Greene, 
(Ky.    i()oo)    55   S.  W.   Rep.  420. 

In  Missouri  it  is  provided  that  no  new  dis- 
trict shall  be  formed  containing  within  its 
limits  less  than  twenty  children  of  school  age, 
nor  shall  the  territory  of  a  district  already 
organized  be  so  encroached  upon  as  to  leave  it 
with  a  population  of  less  than  twenty  children 
of  school  age.  State  z'.  Hill,  152  Mo.  234.  See 
al?o   State  z\  Buckner.   54  Mo.   App.   452. 

Statute  Limiting  New  School  District  to  Specified, 
Territorial  Area.  —  Rocser  f.  Gartland,  75 
Mich.    143. 

Volume  XXV 


13  Hun  (N. 
'.  Robeson 
.    Meyer,    9 


School  Districts. 


SCHOOLS. 


Alteratiou  of  Boundaries. 


provision  the  territory  comprised  in  a  town  or  city  is  frequently  constituted 
into  an  independent  school  district,*  sometimes  thereby  altering  the  boundaries 
of  an  old  district.* 

Annexing  Contiguous  Territory  to  Municipality.  —  So  provision  is  frequently  made 
for  the  annexation  of  contii^uous  territory  to  municipalities  for  school 
purposes.^ 

Effect  of  Extension  of  City  Limits.  —  In  the  absence  of  any  statute  expressly  so 
providing,"*  the  extension  of  the  limits  of  a  city  will  not  have  the  effect  of 
bringing  under  the  control  of  a  school  district  within  the  city  or  coextensive 
therewith  the  territory  so  attached.^ 

c.  DelegatiOxNT  of  Power  of  Alteration  to  Officials.  —  The  power 
to  alter  the  boundaries  of  school  districts  may  be  delegated  to  a  subordinate 
body  or  official,  and  provision  is  usually  made  by  statute  vesting  such  power 
in  designated  officers." 

Forming  Subdistricts  or  Divisions  of  District 
Not  Amounting  to  Independent  Districts.  —Center 
iJist.  Tp.  V.  Independent  Dist.,  82  Iowa  10; 
Burnham  v.  Rogers,  167  Mo.  17;  Com.  •:/.  Gard- 
ner, 23  Pa.  St.  417;  State  v.  Watson,  (Tenn. 
Ch.   1896)    39   S.  W.  Rep.   536. 

Power  to  Alter  Boundaries  of  Subdistricts.  — 
Fason  v.  Douglass.  55  Iowa  390 ;  Independent 
Dist.  v.  Independent   Dist.,   65   Iowa   590. 

1.  Creating  School  Districts  in  Towns  and  Cities. 
—  Beavers  -'.  State,  60  /\rk.  124;  People  f. 
Bruennemer,  168  111.  482;  Munn  v.  Soap  Creek 
School  Tp.,  no  Iowa  652;  Ft.  Dodge  City 
School  Dist.  V.  Wahkansa  Dist.  Tp.,  15  Iowa 
434;  State  V.  West  Duluth  Land  Co.,  75  Minn. 
456 ;  Ewing  v.  Board  of  Education,  72  Mo. 
436;  State  V.  Heath,  56  Mo.  231  ;  State  v.  Wil- 
cox, 45  Mo.  458  ;  F.l  Paso  v.  Ruckman,  92  Tex. 
86;  Conklin  v.  El  Paso,  (Tex.  Civ.  App.  1897) 
44  S.  W.  Rep.  879;  State  v.  Callaghan,  91  Tex. 
313:  School  Trustees  v.  Sherman,  91  Tex.  188, 
(Tex.   Civ.  App.   1897)  44  S.  W.  Rep.  615. 

Constitutional  Provision  Segregating  Cities  of 
Certain  Class.  —  Merrill  v.  Spencer,  14  Utah 
27. V 

Statute  Authorizing  Unincorporated  Towns  to 
Incorporate  for  School  Purposes  Only.  —  Pontotoc 
Independent  School  Dist.  Corp.  v.  Johnson, 
(Tex.  Civ.  App.  1900)  59  S.  W.  Rep.  53;  State 
V.  Norwood,  24  Tex.  Civ.  App.  24 ;  Pinson  v. 
Vesey,  23  Tex.  Civ.  .A.pp.  91  ;  State  v.  Allegree, 
(Tex.  Civ.  App.  1893)  22  S.  W.  Rep.  289.  In 
State  V.  Wofford,  90  Tex.  514,  this  statute  was 
held  inapplicable  to  territory  in  an  incorporated 
town. 

Creation  of  Joint  District  by  Village  Charter.  — 
State   -'.    Wolfrom,    25    Wis.    468. 

2.  Bay  View  School  Dist.  7'.  Linscott.  99  Cnl. 
25.      See  also   State  v.  Wollroni,  25   Wis.  468. 

3.  Annexing  Contiguous  Territory  to  Munici- 
pality. —  Beavers  v.  State.  60  .'\rk.  124  :  Kramm 
V.  Bogue,  127  Cal.  122;  School  Com'rs  7'.  Center 
Tp..  143  Ind.  391  ;  Independent  School  Dist.  7\ 
Board  of  Supervisors,  25  Iowa  305  ;  Ft.  Dodge 
City  School  Dist.  v.  Wahkansa  Dist.  Tp.,  15 
Iowa  434;  State  '•.  Board  of  Education,  64  Mo. 
53  :  State  f.  Marshall,  48  Mo.  App.  560  ;  Strong 
V.  State,  21  Ohio  St.  352;  Cist  v.  State,  21 
Ohio  St.  339  :  Board  of  Education  v.  Boyer,  5 
Okla.  225  ;  School'  Dist.  No.  74  v.  Long,  2 
Okla.  460:  Redfield  School  Dist.  No.  12  v. 
Redfield  Independent  School  Dist.  No.  20,  14 
S.  Dak.  220.  See  Henry  v.  Dulle,  74  Mo.  443  ; 
State  V.  Searl,  50  Mo.  268. 


Consent  of  Electors  of  Annexed  Territory  Re- 
quired.—  Beavers  i\   State,  60   .\rk.    124. 

Petition  of  Designated  Number  of  Voters  in  Con- 
tiguous Territory  Required  —  Alunn  v.  Soap 
Creek  School  Tp.,  iio  Iowa  652;  Board  of 
Education  f.   Boyer,   5   Okla.  225. 

Inclusion  of  Town  or  City  with  Contiguous 
Territory  Held  Not  Unconstitutional. —  State  ■:■. 
Brownson,  94  Tex.   436. 

4.  McGovern  v.  Fairchild,  2  Wash.  479.  See 
also  Allen  School  Tp.  v.  School  Town,  109  Ind. 
559;  School  Com'rs  v.  Center  Tp.,  143  Ind. 
391. 

5.  Stale  2'.  Independent  School  Dist.  No.  6, 
46  Iowa  425;  State  7.'.  Henderson,  145  Mo.  329  ; 
Macon  School  Dist.  v.  Goodding,  120  Mo.  67. 
Compare  McGurn  v.  Board  of  Education,  133  HI. 
122;  Winona  7\  School  Dist.  No.  82,  40  Minn. 
13,  12  Am.  St.  Rep.  687. 

6.  School  Dist.  No.  17  v.  Zediker.  4  Okla. 
599- 

Power  Vested  in  School  Trustees.  —  People  v. 
Keecliler,  104  111.  235;  Hamilton  v.  Frette,  189 
111.  190;  People  V.  .\llen,  155  111.  402;  Parr  v. 
Miller,  146  111.  596;  Rayfield  v.  People,  144  HI- 
332.  But  an  appeal  to  the  county  superintend- 
ent is  provided.  Mason  v.  People,  185  111.  302 ; 
School  Trustees  v.  School  Directors,  190  111. 
390. 

Power  Vested  in  School  Committees.  —  Bull  7<. 
School    Committee,    i  1    R.    I.   244. 

Power  Vested  in  School  Committee  and  Selectmen. 
—  School  Dist.  No.  6  i-.  Cnrr,  55  N.  H.  452. 
Compare  Neal  v.  Lewis,  46  N.  H.  276 :  Con- 
verse V.  Porter,  45   N.    H.   3S5. 

Authority  Vested  in  Town  Superintendent  and 
Trustees.  —  State  7\  Reeves,  28  X.  J.  L.  520  ; 
State  f.  Browning,   I'S  N.  J.  L.  556. 

Township  Trustees  with  Appeal  to  County 
Superintendent.  — -  IL'nricks  7'.  State.  151  Ind. 
454;  State  7\  Wilson.  149  Ind.  253;  Tufts  7\ 
State,  119  Ind.  232;  State  7'.  Sherman,- 90  Ind. 
123. 

Power  Vested  in  County  Courts.  —  State  7'. 
Watson,  (Tcnn.  Ch.  1806)  30  S.  W.  Rep.  536. 
\(listi)i£;i(ishi>is  Rodcmer  7'.  Mitchell,  00  Tenn. 
65]  :  Board  of  Education  7'.  Board  of  Education. 
30  W.  Va.  424- 

Power  Vested  in  County  Superintendent.  — 
Stewart  v.  Adams,  50  Kan.  560-  .School  Dist. 
No.  50  V.  Roach,  41  Kan.  5^1  ;  Howard  v.  For- 
ester, (Kv.  1900)  ?;o  S.  W.  Ren.  10:  Hen- 
dreschke  7.:  Harvard  High  S-hool  Dist..  35  Neh 
400:  School  Dist.  No.  17  'c.  Zediker.  4  Okla. 
Volume  XXV. 


School  Districts. 


SCHOOLS. 


AlteratioD  of  Boundariei. 


Alteration  Made  Dependent  on  Convenience  of  Inhabitants.  —  In  some  jurisdictions 
provision  is  made  for  attacliing  a  part  of  a  school  corporation  to  an  adjoining 
school  corporation  where  by  reason  of  natural  obstacles  the  inhabitants  of  the 
former  cannot,  in  the  opinion  of  a  designated  ofificer,  with  reasonable  facility 
attend  school  in  their  own  corporation.* 

d.  Consent  of  Inhabitants  —  (i)  In  General.  —  Under  the  statutes  in 
most  jurisdictions,  where  it  is  sought  to  divide  a  district  or  to  change  its  limits 
in  any  way,  this  can  be  done  only  with  the  consent  of  a  majority,  or  a  desig- 
nated number  or  proportion,  of  the  legal  voters  of  the  districts  to  be  affected 
by  the  change,  or  sometimes  of  the  territory  to  be  converted  into  the  new 
district.* 

(2)  Petition. — Thus  in  some  jurisdictions,  before  the  proper  officers  can 
make  an  alteration  there  must  be  a  petition  signed  by  a  designated  number 
or  proportion  of  voters  of  the  districts  to  be  affected  or  of  the  contemplated 
new  district.^ 


599.  See  also  School  Dist.  No.  57  v.  Board  of 
Education,   16   Kan.  536. 

But  in  Kansas  an  appeal  to  the  county  com- 
missioners from  the  decision  of  the  county 
superintendent  is  provided.  Jeffreys  -'.  School 
Dist.  No.  54,  3  Kan.  .'\pp.  154;  State  "'.  Secrest, 
60  Kan.  64!. 

Power  Vested  in  County  Commissioners.  — 
School  District  No.  i  v.  Eckert,  84  Minn.  417; 
Porter  v.  State,  78  Tex.  591.  See  also  State  f. 
Independent  School   Dist.,  42  Minn.  357. 

Power  Vested  in  County  Commissioners  and 
Superintendent.  —  School  Dist.  No.  74  v.  Lin- 
coln County,  9  S.   Dak.  291. 

Boundary  Board  Held  Without  Power  Because 
of  Defect  in  Statute. — School  Dist.  No.  no  -■. 
Palmer,   41    (Jregon    485. 

Necessity  of  Consent  or  Concurrent  Action  on 
Part  of  Officers  of  Districts  or  Townships  Affected. 
—  People  V.  Kcechler,  ig4  111.  235;  Mason  v. 
People,  185  111.  302;  Rayfield  v.  People,  144  111. 
Z2,2. ;  Fairview  Independent  Dist.  v.  Durland,  45 
Iowa  53  ;  Burnett  v.  School  Inspectors,  97  Mich. 
103;  State  V.  Wright,  17  Ohio  z^.  See  also 
State  V.  Browning,  27  N.  J.  L.  527,  28  N.  J.  L. 
556. 

Joint  Meeting  of  Boards  of  Townships  Affected 
Held  Necessary.  —  Smith  v.  Township  Board  of 
Education,  58  Mo.  297.  Compare  Rayfield  :■. 
People.    144    111.  3,3^. 

Concurrent  Action  on  Part  of  County  Officials  to 
Form  District  from  Parts  of  Two  Counties.  ~ 
Common  School  Dist.  No.  50  v.  Young.  105  Ky. 
299  ;  Lytle  School  Dist.  v.  Haas.  24  Tex.  Civ. 
App.  43,3. 

Necessity  of  Joint  Action  to  Alter  District  Lying 
in  Two  Townships.  —  State  v.  Rice,  35  ^^'is.  183. 

Necessity  of  Record  Showing  Jurisdictional 
Facts,  —  Board  of  Education  v.  School  Trustees. 
174  Hi.  510;  Perrizo  v.  Kesler,  03  Mich.  280; 
Hiart  7-.  Myers,  (Neb.  1902)  91  N.  W.  Rep.  573. 
See  also  Ringo  v.  Stewart,  4  B.  Mon.  (Ky.)  206. 
Compare  Parr  v.  Miller.   146   111.  596. 

1.  Alteration  Made  Dependent  on  Convenience 
of  Inhabitants. —  Union  Dist.  Tp.  v.  Greene  In- 
dependent Dist.,  41  Iowa  30;  Newlon  v.  Inde- 
pendent Dist.,  109  Iowa  169:  Independent 
School  Dist.,  19  Pa.  Co.  Ct.  452;  Mt.  Pleasant 
Tp.  Independent  School  Dist.,  10  Pa.  Co.  Ct. 
588.     See  also  In  re  Heidler,  122  Pa.  St.  653. 

Actual  Existence  of  Obstacles  Held  Necessary.— 
Newton  School  Tp.  v.  Independent  School  Dist., 
no  Iowa  30;  Independent  Dist.  ■:■.  Independent 


Dist.,  62  Iowa  616.  See  also  Metz  v.  Anderson, 
2^  III.  463,  76  Am.  Dec.  704.  Compare  School 
Dist.  No.  17  z'.  Zediker,  4  Okla.  599. 

Change  of  Boundaries  of  Independent  District. — 
Newlon  f.  Indej^endent  Dist.,  109  Iowa  169; 
Independent  Dist.  t\  Independent  Dist.,  65  Iowa 
590  ;  Independent  Dist.  j'.  Independent  Dist.,  62 
Iowa  616:  Eason  7'.  Douglass,  55  Iowa  390; 
District  ■ii>.  f.  Independent  Dist.,  82  Iowa  10. 

Provision  for  Restoration  of  Territory  under 
Special  Circumstances.  —  Odendahl  v.  Russell, 
86  Iowa  669  ;  Barnett  v.  Independent  Dist.,  73 
Iowa  134.  See  also  Albin  v.  Board  of  Direct- 
ors, 58  Iowa  77  ;  Center  Dist.  Tp.  v.  Independ- 
ent Dist.,  8j  Iowa  10. 

2.  Necessity  of  Consent  of  Inhabitants.  — 
Dartmouth  Sav.  Bank  7'.  School  Dist.  No.  6,  6 
Dak.  332;  People  v.  Keechler,  194  III.  235; 
Boone  v.  People,  4  111.  App.  231  ;  Burnett 
7'.  School  Inspectors,  97  Mich.  103  ;  Gentle  v. 
School  Inspectors,  73  Mich.  40 ;  Coulter  v. 
School  Inspectors,  59  Mich.  391  ;  State  ?'.  Grim- 
shaw,  (Mo.  1886)  I  S.  VV.  Rep.  363;  State  v. 
Compton,  28  Neb.  485  ;  State  v.  Deshler,  25  N. 
J.  L.  177;  School  Dist.  No.  74  v.  Lincoln 
County,  9  S.  Dak.  291  ;  Junction  City  School 
Incorporation  7'.  School  Dist.  No.  6,  8i  Tex. 
148:  Whitmire  7'.  State  (Tex.  Civ.  App.  1898) 
47  S.  W.  Rep.  293  ;  Barrett  v.  Coleman,  12  Tex. 
Civ.  .A.pp.  663. 

Provision  for  Appeal  in  Case  of  Disagreement  in 
Vote  of  Different  Districts  Affected.  —  State  v. 
Gibson,  78  Mo.  .App.  170.  2  Mo.  App.  Rep. 
105. 

Where  No  Statutory  Form  of  Consent  Is  Pre- 
scribed. —  In  Howell  7'.  Shannon,  (Mich.  1902) 
90  N.  W.  Rep.  410,  it  was  held  that  where  the 
statute  does  not  provide  in  what  way  it  shall  be 
shown  to  the  school  directors  that  a  majority 
of  the  resident  taxpayers  had  consented  to  the 
consolidation  of  school  districts,  their  action 
will  not  be  overturned  where  it  appears  from 
the  records  that  the  board  satisfied  itself  that  a 
majority  consented,  and  on  the  strength  of  this 
a  site  for  a  school  building  was  secured  and  the 
building  was  erected  and  a  school  was  main- 
tained therein.  See. also  Gentle  v.  School  In- 
spectors. 73  Mich.  40. 

3.  Petition  by  Voters  —  Arkansas.  —  School 
Dist.  No,  1 1  7-.  School  Dist.  No.  20,  63  Ark. 
543  ;   Hudspeth  7.  Wallis,   54  Ark.  134. 

Dakota.  —  Dartmouth    Sav.    Bank   v.    School 
Dist.  No.  6,  6  Dak.  332. 
36  Volume  XXV, 


School  Districts. 


SCHOOLS. 


Alteration  of  Boundaries. 


(3)  Submission  to  Voters.  —  In  some  jurisdictions  provision  is  made  for 
submitting  to  vote  the  question  of  forming  new  districts  by  altering  the 
boundaries  of  others  and  the  question  of  making  changes  in  the  boundaries 
of  districts  generally.* 

e.  Notice.  —  In  many  jurisdictions  the  statutes  require  notice  to  be  given 
to  the  voters  or  the  proper  officials  of  the  time  and  place  of  the  meeting  at 
which  a  proposed  alteration  is  to  be  made."-* 

/.  Regularity  of  Alteration  Not  Subject  to  Collateral  Attack. 
—  The  legality  of  an  alteration  in  school  districts  cannot  be  tested  in  a  col- 

Me.  564.     Compare  Call  v.  Chadbourne,  46  Me. 
206. 

Massachusetts.  —  School  Dist.  No.  i  v.  Rich- 
ardson, 23  Pick.  (Mass.)  62;  Waldron  v.  Lee,  5 
Pick.  (Mass.)  335;  Richards  v.  Dagget,  4  Mass. 
534. 

Vermont.  —  Greenbanks  "'.  Boutwell,  43  Vt. 
207;  Hewett  V.  Miller,  21  Vt.  401. 

District  Divided  by  Township  Lines  Altered  by 
Mutual  Consent. — Jones  v.  Camp,  34  Vt.  384; 
Pierce  v.  Whitman,  23  Vt.  626.  See  also  State 
v.  Patton,  79  Mo.  App.  164. 

Concurrent  Vote  of  Townships  Affected  Required. 
—  In  order  to  establish  a  school  district  out  of 
contiguous  portions  of  two  towns,  it  is  neces- 
sary that  both  should  co-operate  in  their  cor- 
porate capacity  to  effect  this  purpose.  And, 
therefore,  where  it  appeared  that  one  of  two 
such  towns  did  not  vote  on  the  question,  the 
vote  of  the  other  must  be  regarded  as  inopera- 
tive and  void.  Butterfield  v.  School  Dist.  No. 
6,  61    Me.  5S3. 

Submission  of  Question  to  Voters  Authorized  in 
Illinois  under  Certain  Circumstances.  —  People  v. 
Keechlcr,  194  111.  235. 

2.  Necessity  of  Notice  —  Kentucky.  —  Howard 
Z'.  Forester,  59  S.  \V.  Rep.  10,  22  Ky.  L.  Rep. 
843;  Anderson  v.  Greene,  (Ky.  1900)  55  S.  W. 
Rep.  420. 

Manic.  —  Butterfield  v.  School  Dist.  No.  6,  61 
Me.  583. 

Michigan.  —  Smelser  v.  School  Inspectors, 
125  Mich.  666;  Graves  v.  Joint  Board  of  School 
Inspectors,  102  Mich.  634;  Fractional  School 
Dist.  No.  One  v.  Metcalf,  93  Alich.  497 ; 
Donough  v.  Dewey,  82  Mich.  309;  Gentle  v. 
School  Inspectors,  73  Mich.  40 ;  Fractional 
School  Dist.  Number  3.  v.  School  Inspectors,  63 
Mich.  611;  Coulter  v.  School  Inspectors,  59 
Mich.  394. 

Missouri.  —  School  Dist.  No.  i  v.  School 
Dist.  No.  4,  94  Mo.  612;  Mason  v.  Kennedy,  89 
Mo.  23. 

Nebraska.  —  School  Dist.  No.  10  v.  Coleman, 
39  Neb.  391  ;  Dooley  v.  Neese,  31  Neb.  424. 

Nciu  Jersey.  —  State  v.  Browning,  28  N.  J.  L. 
556. 

Nezv  York.  —  People  v.  Hooper,  13  Hun  (N. 
Y.)   639. 

Pennsylvania. — Clearfield  Independent  School 
Dist.,  79  Pa.  St.  419.  See  Wilkins  Tp.  School 
Dist.,  70  Pa.  St.  108;  Independent  School  Dist. 
No.  8.  T,i  Pa.  St.  297. 

South  Dakota.  —  School  Dist.  No.  56  v. 
School  Dist.  No.  27,  9  S.  Dak.  336. 

Wisconsin.  —  State  v.  Clifton,  113  Wis.  107; 
State  V.  Steele,  106  Wis.  475;  State  v.  Graham, 
60  Wis.  305. 

See  also   Weeks  v.  Batchelder,   41    Vt.   317; 
Ovitt  V.  Chase,  37  Vt.  196  ;  Moore  v.  Beattie,  33 
Vt.  219. 
7  Volume  XXV. 


Illinois.  —  People  v.  Keechler,  194  111.  235; 
Hamilton  v.  Trette,  189  111.  190;  People  v.  Al- 
len, 155  111.  402;  Parr  v.  Miller,  146  111.  596; 
Trumbo  v.  People,  75  111.  561  ;  School  Trustees 
V.  People,  71  111.  559;  People  v.  Ricker,  142  111. 
650;  Scott  V.  School  Trustees,  71  111.  App.  95; 
Potter  V.  Board  of  School  Trustees,  10  111.  App. 
343.  See  Carrico  v.  People,  123  111.  198;  Webb 
V.  People,  II  111.  App.  358. 

Indiana.  —  Nutter  v.  School  Dist.,  4  Blackf. 
(Ind.)  351  ;  Henricks  v.  State,  151  Ind.  454. 

Michigan.  —  Perrizo  v.  Kesler,  93  Mich.  280. 
Compare  Gentle  v.  School  Inspectors,  73  Mich. 
40. 

Minnesota.  —  State  v.  Independent  School 
Dist.,  42  Minn.  357. 

Missouri.  —  State  v.  Hill,   152  Mo.  234. 

Nebraska.  —  School  Dist.  No.  67  v.  School 
Dist.  No.  24,  55  Neb.  716;  Bay  State  Live- 
stock Co.  V.  Bing,  51  Neb.  570;  Cowles  v. 
School  Dist.  No.  6,  22   Neb.  655. 

North  Dakota.  —  State  v.  Gang,  10  N.  Dak. 
331- 

Ohio.  —  State  v.  Wright,   17  Ohio   32. 

South  Dakota. —  School  Dist.  No.  74  v.  Lin- 
coln County,  9  S.  Dak.  291. 

See  rilso  State  i\   Lcvcrton,  53  Iowa  483. 

Petition  Held  Not  Required  in  Case  of  Territory 
Detached  and  Annexed. —  Sixteenth  School  Dist. 
T    Davis  County,  16  Utah  323. 

Mandamus  to  Compel  Granting  of  Petition.  — 
School  Trustees  v.  People,  121  111.  552;  School 
Trustees  v.  People,  76  111.  621  ;  Potter  v.  Board 
of  School  Trustees,  10  111.  App.  343.  See  also 
School  Directors  v.  School  Directors,  135  111. 
464;  School  Trustees  v.  People,  71  111.  559. 
Compare  School  Trustees  v.  Kay,  8  111.  App. 
30;  Hildreth  v.  Heath,  i  111.  App.  85. 

1.  Submission  to  Voters  upon  Petition  and  Notice. 

—  State  V.  Hill,  152  Mo.  234;  State  v.  Stone, 
152  Mo.  202;  School  Dist.  No.  6  v.  Burris,  84 
Mo.  App.  654 ;  State  v.  Burford,  82  Mo.  App. 
343;  State  V.  Gibson,  78  Mo.  App.  170;  State  v. 
Eden,  54  Mo.  App.  31.  See  also  State  7'.  Miller, 
65  Mo.  50. 

Provision  for  Appeal  to  County  Commissioner 
upon  Disagreement  in  Vote  of  Different  Districts. 

—  School  Dist.  No.  i  v.  School  Dist.  No.  4,  94 
Mo.  612;  State  v.  Young.  84  Mo.  go;  State  '■. 
Burford,  82  Mo.  App.  343. 

Power  to  Make  Alterations  Vested  in  Towns  — 
Connecticut.  —  Gv7L\e\  Hill  School  Dist.  v.  Old 
Farm  School  Dist.,  55  Conn.  244;  Scoville  v. 
Mattoon,  55  Conn.  144;  Sixteenth  School  Dist. 
V.  Eighteenth  School  Dist.,  54  Conn.  50. 

Maine.  —  Parker  v.  Titcomb,  82  Me.  180; 
Grindle  v.  School  Dist.  No.  i,  64  Me.  44;  Web- 
ber z'.  Stover,  62  Me.  512;  Allen  r.  Archer,  49 
Me.  346  ;  School  Dist.  No.  i  v.  Stearns,  48  Me. 
568  ;  Tucker  v.  Wentworth,  35  Me.  393  ;  Smyth 
V.  Titcomb,  31  Me.  272;  Whitmore  v.  Hogan,  22 


School  Districts.     \      ^       of 


SCHOOLS. 


Alteratiuu  of  Boundaries, 


lateral  proceeding,  but  only  by  an  inforniatioii  in  the  nature  of  a  quo  warranto 
against  the  proper  officers;  *  at  least  where  the  ofhcial  or  oiticials  makins;  the 
alteration  acted  within  their  jurisdiction.'"* 

g.  Effect  on  Property  Rkjiits  — (i)  /;/  Gowral.  —\^y  the  common 
law,  as  a  general  rule,  if  a  part  of  the  territory  of  a  school  district  is  separated 
from  it  and  annexed  to  or  organized  into  another,  the  original  organization 
retains  all  its  property,  property  rights,  and  franchises,  unless  some  statutory 
provision  is  made  to  the  contrary.^ 

(2)  Real  Estate.  ^  This  rule  is  applicable  to  school  buildings,  schoolhouse 
sites,  and  any  real  estate  whatever,  at  least  such  as  is  situated  within  the 
limits  of  the  old  district  after  the  subdivision.'*  y\nd  it  has  even  been  held 
that  the  alteration  of  the  boundaries  of  a  school  district,  whereby  one  of  its 
schoolhouses  is  left  within  the  limits  of  another  district,  will  not  defeat  or 
affect  its  right  of  property  therein.*^  On  the  other  hand,  it  has  been  held 
that  the  common  law  leaves  the  property  where  it  is  found,  and  that  in  the 
absence  of  special  legislation  to  the  contrary,  a  new  school  district  which  is 
organized  from  territory  detached  from  an  old  school  district  will  not  be 
required  to  pay  anything  to  the  old  district  on  account  of  schoolhouses  or 
schoolhouse  sites,  or  any  real  estate  whatever,  belonging  to  the  old  school 
district  and  situated  in  the  new  district.** 

(3)  Funds  or  Assets.  — ■  Provision  is  often  made  by  statute  for  an  apportion- 
ment of  the  funds  or  assets  by  the  school  directors  or  other  designated  officers, 
between  the  old  school  district  and  a  new  district  which  has  been  formed  from 
territory  detached  from  the  old,  or  which  has  been  enlarged  by  such  territory.'' 


1.  Regularity  of  Alteration  Not  Subject  to  Col- 
lateral Attack.  —  School  Directors  v.  School  Di- 
rectors, i.?5  111.  464;  AlJerman  v.  School  Direct- 
ors, 91  111.  179;  People  V.  Newberry,  87  111.  41  -, 
Trumbo  v.  People,  75  111.  561  ;  School  Dist.  No. 
8  V.  Gibbs,  52  Kan.  564;  Roeser  v.  Gartland,  75 
Mich.  143;  ScalTord  v.  Gladwin  County,  41 
-Mich.  647;  Lord  f.  l£very,  38  Mich.  405;  Cle- 
ment t'.  Everest,  29  Mich.  19;  School  Dist.  No. 
67  -'.  School  Dist.  No.  24,  55  Neb.  716  ;  State  v. 
Palmer,  18  Neb.  64a;  Rawson  t'.  Van  Riper,  i 
Thomp.  &  C.   (X.  V.)  370. 

Certiorari  to  Review  Proceedings  of  Directors  or 
Trustees.  —  Potter  ;•.  Board  of  School  Trustees, 
10  111.  .-\pp.  344;  Miller  v.  School  Trustees,  88 
111.  26;  State  -'.  Graham,  60  Wis.  395.  But 
in  Fractional  School  Dist.  No.  i  v.  Joint 
Board  of  School  Inspectors,  27  Mich.  3,  it  was 
held  that  a  certiorari  to  review  proceedings 
whereby  a  new  school  district  had  been  created 
out  of  old  districts  must  be  applied  for  before 
the  district  has  been  organized  and  assumed 
the  functions  of  a  corporation.  Perrizo  v. 
Kesler,  93  Mich.  2S0.  See  also  Brody  -'.  Penn. 
Tp.    Board,   32  ^licli.   272. 

Regularity  of  Alterations  Held  Not  to  Be  Ques- 
tioned by  District.  —  .\  school  district  as  a  cor- 
poration cannot,  it  has  been  held,  question  the 
action  of  a  county  superintendent  in  changing 
the  boundaries  of  a  district.  Cowles  v.  School 
Dist.,  2T,  Neb.  655  :  School  Dist.  v.  Wheeler,  25 
Neb.  199;  Hendreske  v.  School  Dist.,  35  Neb. 
400 :  School  Dist.  No.  67  v.  School  Dist.  No.  24, 
55   Neb.   716. 

2.  State  V.  Palmer,  18  Neb.  644;  School  Dist. 
No.  67  V.  School  Dist.  No.  24,  55  Neb.  716. 

3.  Effect  on  Property  Rights.  —  Winona  v. 
School  Dist.  No.  82.  40  Minn.  13,  12  Am.  St. 
Rep.  687;  Briggs  v.  School  Dist.  No.  i,  21  Wis. 
348;  Joint  School  Dist.  No.  8  v.  School  Dist. 
No.   s,  92  Wis.  608. 


38 


4.  See  Whittier  v.  Sanborn,  38  Me.  32; 
Winona  v.  School  Dist.  No.  82,  40  Minn.  13, 
12  Am.   St.   Rep.  687. 

5.  Whittier  v.  Sanborn,  38  Me.  32;  Winona 
V.  School  Dist.  No.  82,  40  Minn.  13,  12  Am. 
St.  Rep.  687.  See  also  Reckert  x>.  Peru,  60  Ind. 
473  ;  School  Dist.  No.  i  v.  Richardson,  23  Pick. 
(Mass.)  62.  Compare  School  Tp.  v.  School 
Town,  109  Ind.  559;  School  Dist.  No.  6  v.  Tap- 
ley,    I    .'Mien    (Mass.)   49. 

Division  of  School  District  and  Absorption  of 
Part  by  Extension  of  City  Limits.  —  Board  of 
I'Mucatiiin  :•.  School  Dist.  No.  7,  45  Kan.  560; 
Winona  v.  School  Dist.  No.  82,  40  Minn.  13,  12 
Am.  St.  Rep.  687.  Compare  Carson  v.  State,  27 
Ind.  465. 

High  School  for  Benefit  of  Entire  Township.  — 
In  Ohio  it  has  been  held  that  public  school 
property  that  has  been  set  apart  for  the  puri)ose 
of  a  pulilic  school  of  a  higher  grade  than  pri- 
mary does  not  pass  or  vest  in  the  board  of 
education  of  a  separate  school  district  that  may 
be  afterwards  organized  out  of  the  territory 
within  which  the  property  hap|)ens  to  be  situ- 
ated. Board  of  Education  v.  Board  of  Educa- 
tion. 46  Ohio   St.  595. 

6.  Board  of  School  Directors  v.  Ashland,  87 
Wis.  53,^. 

Compensation  Required  by  Statute  for  Undue 
Proportion  of  Real  Estate.  —  School  Dist.'s  Ap- 
peal, 96  Pa.  St.  76.  See  State  v.  School  Dist. 
No.   21,  6   N.   Dak.  488. 

7.  Statutory  Provision  for  Apportionment  of 
Assets  — Arkansas.  —  Merritt  v.  School  Dist.,  54 
Ark.  468;  Evans  ?■.  Batchelor,  61  Ark.  521; 
School  Dist.  No.  15  -•.  School  Dist.,  63  Ark. 
433- 

Illinois.  —  School    Directors  v.  Miller,  49   111. 

494 ;    School   Directors  v.   School   Directors,   7z 

111.  250  ;  School   Directors  -'.   School  Directors, 

16  111.  App.  651  ;  People  v.  Keechler,  194  111.  235. 

Volume  XXV. 


School  Distriots. 


SCHOOLS. 


Alteration  of  Boundaries. 


But,  in  the  absence  of  statutory  authority  for  an  apportionment,  none  can  be 
made.* 

(4)  Abolition  of  Old  District.  —  Where  an  old  school  district  is  entirely 
abolished  and  new  ones  are  created  out  of  its  territory,  the  new  organizations 
are  to  be  deemed  the  successors  of  the  old  one,  and  are  entitled  to  all  its 
property,  and  in  the  absence  of  any  legislative  provision  on  the  subject  each 
of  the  new  organizations  will  take  the  property  which  happens  to  fall  within 
its  limits. '-*  Thus,  in  the  absence  of  legi^^lation  making  a  different  dispositiori 
of  the  property,*  it  will  be  assumed  that  the  legislature  intended  that  wlien 


/ou'a.  —  Independent  School  Dist.  v.  Inde- 
pendent School  Dist.,  43  Iowa  444 ;  Independ- 
ent School  Dist.  V.  Independent  School  Dist., 
45  Iowa  391  ;  Albin  v.  Independent  Dist.,  58 
Iowa  T7  ;  District  Tp.  v.  Independent  Dist.,  60 
Iowa   141. 

Kansas.  —  School  Dist.  No.  49  v.  School 
Dist.  No.  70,  20  Kan.  76 ;  Robinet  v.  School 
Dist.  No.  83,   63   Kan.   i. 

Louisiana.  —  Hendricks  v.  Babo,  12  La.  Ann. 
620 ;  School  Board  v.  School  Board,  36  La. 
Ann.  806. 

Michigan.  —  School  Dist.  No.  Thirteen  v. 
Dean,  17  Mich.  223;  Deckerville  High  School 
Dist.  V.  School  Dist.  No.  3,  (Mich.  1902J  90  N. 
W.  Rep.  1064. 

Minnesota.  —  Gregg  v.  French,  67   Minn.  402. 

Nebraska.  —  People  v.  Hodge,  4  Neb.  265  ; 
School  Dist.  No.  46  v.  School  Dist.  No.  53,  49 
Neb.   33- 

New  Hampshire.  —  School  Dist.  No.  i  v. 
Sanborn,  25  N.  H.  34 ;  School  Dist.  No.  9  v. 
Twitchell,   63   N.   H.    11. 

North  Dakota.  —  State  v.  School  Dist.  No. 
21,  6  N.  Dak.  488. 

Pennsylvania. — -Manchester  v.  Reserve  Tp., 
4  Pa.  St.  35  ;  Lower  Allen  Tp.  School  Dist.  v. 
Shiremanstown  School  Dist.,  yi  Pa.  St.  182; 
Darby  Borough  School  Dist.'s  Appeal,  160  Pa. 
St.  79 ;  Williams  Tp.  v.  Willianistown,  9  Pa. 
Co.  Ct.  65;  Wilkins  Tp.  School  Dist.,  18  Pa. 
Super.  Ct.  293  ;  Wilkins  School  Dist.  v.  Turtle 
Creek  Borough  Dist.,  31  Pittsb.  Leg.  J.  N.  S. 
(Pa.)  189;  In  re  Darby,  etc..  School  Dist.,  10 
Pa.  Co.  Ct.  314.  5  Pa.  Dist.  725- 

South  Dakota.  —  School  Dist.  No.  56  v. 
School  Dist.  No.  27,  9  S.  Dak.  22,^- 

Texas.  —  Porter  v.  State,  78  Tex.  591. 

West  Virginia.  —  Board  of  Education  v. 
Board  of  Education,  30  W.  Va.  424. 

Wisconsin.  —  State  v.  Eaton,  11  Wis.  29; 
Cassville  v.  Morris,  14  Wis.  440;  State  r.  Rice, 
35  Wis.  178;  School  Directors  z'.  School  Direct- 
ors, 81  Wis.  428;  School  Directors  z\  School 
Dist.  No.  I,  81  Wis.  543;  State  v.  Joint  School 
Dist.  No.  I,  109  Wis.  313. 

Power  of  Legislature  to  Provide  for  Apportion- 
ment. —  Greenleaf  ?'.  Township  No.  41,  22  111. 
236. 

Equitable  Division  by  Board  of  Directors  Author- 
ized. —  School  Dist.  No.  2  T'.  Lambert,  28 
Oregon   209. 

Ascertainment  by  Officers  of  Amount  Due  from 
Old  to  New  District  as  Prerequisite  to  Eight  of 
Action.—  School  Dist.  No.  17  t'.  School  Dist. 
No.  2,  17  Neb.  177.  And  see  Donnelly  v.  Duras, 
II   Neb.  283. 

Notice  Required  of  Meeting  at  Which  Apportion- 
ment Is  Made.  —  School  Dist.  No.  Three  z\ 
School   Dist.  No.  One,  63  Mich.  51. 


39 


Decision  of  Board  Held  Not  Subject  to  Collateral 
Attack.  —  independent  School  Dist.  v.  Inde- 
pendent School  Dist.,  43  Iowa  444 ;  Independ- 
ent School  Dist.  V.  Independent  School  Dist., 
45    Iowa  391. 

Provision  for  Appeal  to  Town  Superintendent.  — 
Independent  School  Dist.  v.  Independent  School 
Dist.,  45  Iowa  391  ;  School  Dist.  No.  2  v.  School 
Dist.   No.    I,   3   Wis.   333. 

Recovery  of  Proportion  in  Action  lor  Money  Had 
and  Received.  —  School  Trustees  v.  School 
Trustees,  81  111.  470.  See  also  School  Dist. 
No.  9  V.  School  Dist.  No.  5,  40  Mich.  551. 

Mandamus  to  Compel  Payment  of  Proportion 
Denied.  —  School  Dist.  No.  9  v.  School  Dist. 
No.  5,  40  Mich.  551  ;  School  Dist.  No.  Three  z/. 
Riverside  Tp.,  67  Mich.  404. 

Appeal  to  Township  Board.  —  Cannon  v.  Wil- 
cox, 48    Mich.   404. 

Reference  to  Arbitrators  upon  Disagreement  of 
Trustees.  —  District  Tp.  v.  District  Tp..  45 
Iowa  104;  Independent  School  Dist.  f.  hulc 
pendent  School  Dist.,  45  Iowa  391. 

Statutory  Requirement  of  Notice  of  Propor^d 
Surrender  of  Claim  to  Share  of  Property  by  Kew 
District.-^  School  Dist.  r.  Xcal.  74  Mo.  Am. 
553- 

New  District  Held  Not  Entitled  to  Share  in  Tax 
Not  Levied  at  Time  of  Its  Formation.  —  School 
Dist.   Xo.    15   f.   School    Dist.,    6:-,    Ark.    433. 

No  Apportionment  Where  Change  of  Boundary 
Is  Illegal.  —  State  r.  Grimshaw.  (Mo.  1886)  i 
S.    W.    Rep.    30.?. 

Apportionment  by  Officers  Subsequent  to  Forma- 
tion of  New  District  Held  Valid.  —  School  Dist. 
No.  13  V.  State,  15  Kan.  43:  School  Dist.  No. 
40  V.  School  Dist.  No.  21,  32  Kan.  123;  School 
Dist.  No.  6  7'.  Card,  55  ^'•  H.  452. 

Subsequent  Provision  by  Legislature  Directing 
Apportionment  Held  Valid.  —  Willimantic  School 
Soc.    T.    First    School    Soc,    14    <."onn.    457. 

1.  No  Apportionment  at  Common  Law.  —  Cooke 
z\  School  Dist.  Xo.  12,  12  Colo.  453;  State  v. 
School  Dist.  Xo.  15,  go  Mo.  395;  District  No. 
6  7'.  District  No.  5,  18  Mo.  App.  266;  Rice  7'. 
McClelland,  58  Mo.  116;  Morrow  County  7'. 
Hcndryx,  14  Oregon  397;  State  v.  Board  of 
Education,  12  Ohio  Cir.  Dec.  423;  Board  of 
l-.ducation  7'.  Board  of  Education,  3  Ohio  Cir. 
Dec.  603,  6  Ohio  Cir.  Ct.  597 :  Joint  School 
Dist.  No.  8  V.  School  Dist.  No.  5,  92  Wis. 
608. 

2.  School  Dist.  No.  6  v.  Tapley,  i  Allen 
(Mass.)  49;  School  Dist.  No.  i  v.  Richardson, 
23  Pick.  (Mass.)  62:  Whitmore  7'.  Hogan,  22 
Me.  564 ;  Board  of  Education  v.  Board  of  Edu- 
cation, 30  W.  Va.  424.  See  also  Winona  v. 
School  Dist.  No.  82,  40  Minn.  20,  12  .A.m.  St. 
Ren.  687  :  Raybould  v.  Hardy,  7  Utah  368. 

3.  See  Rawson  z:   Spencer,    1 1 3   Mass.   46. 
Volume  XXV. 


School  DiEtricts. 


SCHOOLS. 


Meetings. 


one  school  district  is  abolished  and  another  embracing  the  same  tenitni\-  is 
established  in  its  place,  the  newly  established  district  sliall  succeetl  to  the 
funds  left  unexpended  by  the  district  which  was  abolishcLl,  so  far  as  such 
funds  were  held  for  school  purposes.* 

h.  Apportionment  of  LiAiiiLiTiES.  — When  an  entire  school  district  is 
absorbed  by  another  or  when  two  or  more  are  united  to  form  a  new  district, 
the  new  or  absorbing  district  assumes  the  liabilities  of  the  old  districts."  But 
where  a  part  of  the  territory  of  one  district  is  separated  from  it  by  annexation 
to  another  or  by  its  formation  into  a  new  district,  the  old  district  remains 
subject  to  all  its  liabilities,  and  no  liability  is  imposed  on  the  new  or  enlarged 
district  in  the  absence  of  special  legislation  to  that  effect.'*  Provision  is  made 
by  express  legislation  in  some  states,  however,  for  an  apportioninent  of  lia- 
bUities  between  the  old  and  the  new  districts.* 

4.  Meetings  —  a.  Au'ruoRirv  to  Call —  (i)  /;/  General.  — Various  statu- 
tory provisions  exist  in  the  different  states  conferring  upon  designated  officers, 
generally  the  school  trustees  or  directors,  the  power  to  call  district  school 
meetings.* 

Limitation    of  Authority    to    Designated    Meetings.  —  If    the    clerk  of   the   district    is 


1.  Gouldin^-  :■.  Peabody,  170  Mass.  483; 
Barre  v.  School  Dist.  No.  13,  67  Vt.  108;  Town 
School  Dist.  V.  Cook,  68  Vt.  88  ;  Barre  v.  School 
Dist.  No.  5,  69  Vt.  374:  School  Dist.  No.  20  ?-. 
Pierce,  67  \'t.  317. 

Debt  Barred  by  Statute  of  Limitations  Con- 
sidered. —  In  Hartford  v.  School  Dist.  No.  13, 
69  \t.  147,  it  was  held  that  where  the  adjust- 
ment by  which  the  balance  of  assets  for  trans- 
fer from  the  abolished  to  the  new  district  is 
left  by  the  legislature  in  the  hands  of  the  old 
district,  in  makin.u;  the  adjustment  the  (dd  dis- 
trict may  lawfully  pay  an  old  debt  though  barred 
by  the  statute  of  limitations. 

Statute  Providing  for  Transfer  of  Assets  of  Old 
to  New  Districts  Held  Constitutional.  —  Perrizo  7'. 
Kesler,  93  Mich.  j8o  ;  Whitney  v.  Stow,  iii 
Mass.  368. 

2.  Assumption  of  Liabilities  of  Abolished  Dis- 
trict.—  l>re\ver  v.  Palmer,  13  Mich.  104;  Kob- 
bins  f.  School  Dist.  No.  i,  10  Minn.  340; 
Thompson  v.  Abbott.  61  Mo.  176;  Clother  v. 
Maher,  15  Neb.  i  ;  School  Dist.  No.  3  v.  Green- 
field. 64  N.  H.  84;  McCully  v.  Board  of  Edu- 
cation. 63  N.  J.  L.  18;  Coler  v.  Coppin,  10  N. 
Dak.  86.  See  also  Halbert  v.  School  Dist.  No. 
J.  36  .Mich.  421.  Conif^.irc  State  f.  Froelich, 
(N.  J.  1897)  37  Atl.  Rep.  1024;  Needliam  z'. 
School   Dist.  No.  6,  62  Vt.   176. 

Statute  Providing  for  Transfer  of  Liabilities  to 
New  District  Held  Constitutional.  —  Perrizo  v. 
Kesler,  1)3  Mitli.  280:  Whitney  f.  Stow,  iii 
Mass.   368;    Rawson   v.   Spencer,    113    Mass.    40. 

3.  School  Directors  Z'.  Miller,  49  111.  494 ; 
People  7'.  Ryan,  19  Mich.  203  :  Winona  v.  School 
Dist.  No.  82,  40  Minn.  13,  12  .'\ni.  St.  Rep.  687; 
Board  of  Education  ?'.  Board  of  Education,  30 
W.  V'a.  424;  Briggs  7'.  School  Dist.  No.  i,  21 
Wis.  348.  See  School  Directors  f.  School  I  )i- 
rectors,  81   Wis.  428. 

4.  Appointment  under  Statutes.  —  Indenendcnt 
Dist.  7'.  District  Tp.,  107  Iowa  73:  District 
Tp.  7'.  Wiggins,  no  Iowa  702:  Gregg  z:  French, 
67  Minn.  402:  Darby  Borough  School  Dist.'s 
Appeal,  160  Pa.  St.  79.  See  also  School  Di- 
rectors' Petition.   172   Pa.  St.  81. 

Apportionment  Limited  to  Liabilities  Existing  at 
Time  of  Organization  of  New  District.  —  Inde- 
pendent  Dist.  z\   District   Tp.,    107    Iowa   73. 


Interest  Allowed  on  Balance  Due  from  Ono 
District  to  Another.  —  SiMingfield  Tp.  School 
Dist.  7'.  Morton  School  Dist.,  7  Del.  Co.  Rep. 
583. 

In  Michigan  it  has  been  held  that  where  terri- 
tory has  been  set  off  from  school  districts  under 
a  law  enjoining  the  officers  of  the  two  parts  to 
apportion  the  indebtedness,  and  the  officers 
have  failed  in  their  duty,  the  creditors  have  no 
recourse  except  against  the  old  district,  this  con- 
clusion being  based  on  the  ground  that  the  right 
of  recovery  by  apportionment  belongs  to  the  old 
district  and  not  to  the  creditors.  People  v. 
Board  of  Education,  41  Mich.  547:  Turnl)ull  v. 
Board  of  Education,  45  Mich.  496.  See  also 
Presque  Isle  County  7'.  Thompson.  (C.  C.  A.) 
61  Fed.  Rep.  914:  Halbert  v.  School  Dist.  No. 
2,  36  Mich.  421.  To  the  same  effect  see  School 
Directors  7'.  Miller,  jg  111.  494. 

In  New  Jersey  it  has  been  held,  under  a  stat- 
ute providing  that  where  a  boroui'h  is  framed 
and  set  olV  from  the  township  and  becomes  a 
separate  school  district,  and  there  is  within  the 
limits  of  the  borough  any  schoolhouse  belonging 
to  the  board  of  education  of  the  township,  and 
for  the  erection  of  which  there  is  any  indebted- 
ness for  which  said  board  is  liable,  the  said  in- 
debtedness shall  be  assumed  to  become  the  obli- 
gation of  the  board  of  education  of  the  borough, 
and  that  whenever  the  board  of  education  of  the 
township  is  compelled  to  pay  by  suit  and  judg- 
ment at  law  any  portion  of  said  indebtedness, 
the  board  of  education  of  the  borough  shafl  re- 
pay to  the  board  of  education  of  the  township 
the  amount  of  tne  said  judgment  with  interest; 
that  the  liability  of  the  oUl  lioard  of  education 
remains,  to  be  enforced  by  suit  and  judgment  at 
law,  and  that  the  new  board  is  ;i:i-;werable  to 
the  old  board  for  the  sum  which  it  is  thus  com- 
pelled to  pay.  McCully  z\  Board  of  Education, 
63  N.  J.  L.  18. 

5.  Authority  to  Call  Meetings  in  General.  — 
Fletcher  7'.  Lincdnville.  20  Me.  439 :  School 
Dist.  No.  5  7'.  Lord,  44  Me.  374 ;  Starbird  v. 
School  Dist.  No.  7,  51  Me.  loi  ;  Denniston 
7'.  School  Dist.  No.  11,  17  N.  H.  402;  Giles  7'. 
Srhru.1   Di^t.  Vn.   I  ..  31  N.  H.  304. 

Postine-  Notice  by  One  Member  of  Board  Held 
Insufficient. —  State  z'.  Lockett.  34  Mo.  App.  202. 
40  Volume  XXV. 


School  Districts. 


SCHOOLS. 


Meetings. 


empowered  by  the  district  to  call  annual  ineetinL,^s  thereof,  this  is  a  limitation 
upon  his  authority,  and  he  cannot  legally  call  any  other  than  such  meetings.* 

(2)  Poivcr  to  Call  Meetings  upon  Default  of  Designated  Officers.  —  Some- 
times the  statutes  designate  other  officers  who  are  to  act  upon  the  default  of 
the  ofificers  upon  whom  the  duty  is  imposed  in  the  first  instance.*  It  has 
been  held  that  when  authority  is  conferred  upon  a  justice  to  call  a  meeting  in 
the  event  of  failure  on  the  part  of  the  proper  officers  to  do  so,  he  is  empowered 
aho  to  act  when  the  proper  officers  have  illegally  called  a  meeting.^ 

(3)  Petition  by  Voters.  —  Provision  is  often  made  for  an  application  or 
petition  by  a  designated  number  of  voters  of  the  district  as  a  prerequisite  to 
calling  the  meeting.* 

b.  How  Called.  —  The  manner  of  calling  meetings  is  generally  prescribed 
by  the  statute.^  In  general,  the  statutes  provide  that  the  proper  officer  shall 
give  notice  of  the  time,  place,  and  purpose  of  the  meeting,"  and  it  is  essential 
to  the  validity  of  the  proceedings  of  the  meeting  that  the  statutory  requirements 
be  complied  with.'' 

Notice  of  Object  of  Meeting.  —  Thus,  where  the  statute  requires  the  notice  of  a 


Notice  by  Two  Directors  Held  Sufficient.  — 
Hdlland  V.  Davies,  36  Ark.  4  {6.  Compare  State 
V.  School  Dist.  No.  30,  43  N.  J.  L.  358. 

Power  to  Warn  Meeting  Distinguished  from 
Power  to  Call.  —  Stone  v.  School  Dist.  No.  4,  8 
Cush.  (Mass.)  592. 

1.  Third  School  Dist.  z:  Atherton,  12  Met. 
(Mass.)    103. 

2.  Power  to  Call  Meetings  upon  Default  of 
Designated  Officers. —  Fletcher  z'.  Lincolnville,  20 
.Me.  439;  Denniston  v.  School  Dist.  No.  11,  17 
N.  H.  492;  Giles  f.  School  Dist.  No.  14,  31  N. 
H.  304. 

3.  Pickering  z\  De  Rocheniont,  66  N.  H.  377. 

4.  Petition  or  Application  of  Voters.  —  School 
Dist.  No.  5  Z'.  Lord,  44  Me.  374;  George  v.  Sec- 
ond School  Dist.,  6  Met.  (Mass.)  4g7.  See  also 
State  V.  Edwards,  151  Mo.  472;  Denniston  v. 
School  Dist.  No.  11,  17  N.  H.  492;  Fletcher  v. 
Lincolnville,  20  Me.  439. 

Application  in  Case  of  Special  Meeting.  — 
Richardson  v.  McReynolds,  114  Mo.  641;  Cen- 
tral School  Supply  House  z'.  School  Dist.  No.  3, 
99  Mich.  402. 

Application  for  Meeting  Held  Unnecessary.  — 
Mason  f.  School   Dist.  No.   14.  -o  \'t.  4S7. 

Recording  or  Production  of  Application  Held 
Unnecessary. —  Soper  v.  School  Dist.  No.  9,  28 
Me.  193- 

5.  See  the  statutes  of  the  various  states. 
Mode  of  Warning  Prescribed  by  Inhabitants  of 

School  District  in  Pursuance  of  Statute.  —  Moor 
z\  Xfwticld,  4  Me.  44:  Hayward  ;•.  School  Dist. 
No.   Thirteen,  2  Cush.    (Mass.)  419. 

6.  Sec  the  statutes  of  the  various  states. 
Requirement  as  to  Places  of  Publishing  Notice. 

—  Bartlett  Z'.  Kinsley,  15  Conn.  327;  Fletcher 
7'.  Lincolnville,  20  Me.  439 ;  Soper  v.  School 
Dist.  No.  9,  28  Me.  193  ;  Seabury  z'.  Howland, 
15  R.  I.  446. 

Within  What  Time  Notice  Must  Be  Given  — 
Maine.  —  Fletcher  v.  Lincolnville,  20  Me. 
439- 

Massachusetts.  —  Perry  z'.  Dover,  12  Pick. 
(Mass.)  206. 

Michigan.  —  Schafer  v.  School  Dist.  No.  i, 
116  Mich.  206. 

Nezc  Hampshire.  —  Harris  v.  School  Dist.  No. 
10,  28  N.  H.  58;  Chapin  v.  School  Dist.  No.  2, 
30  N.  H.  25- 


Rhode  Island.  —  Howland  z\  School  Dist.  No. 
3,  15  R.  I.  184. 

Vermont.  —  Hunt  v.  School  Dist.  No.  20,  14 
Vt.  300,  39  Am.  Dec.  225 ;  Mason  v.  School 
Dist.  No.  14.  20  Vt.  487;  Greenbanks  v.  Bout- 
well,  43  Vt.  207. 

Statute  Requiring  Personal  Notice  or  Written 
Notice  Left  at  Place  of  Abode.  —  Perry  v.  Dover, 
12  Pick.  (  Mass.)  jo6. 

Date  on  Notice  Held  Not  Essential.  —  Braley 
f.  Dickinson.  48  \'t.  599. 

Specification  in  Notice  that  Signers  Are  Free- 
holders Not  Essential.  —  Sturm  ;•.  School  Dist. 
No.  70,  45   Minn.  88. 

Description  of  District  ty  Number  Without 
Naming  Boundaries  Held  Sufficient.  —  Ring  v. 
Grout,  7  Wend.  (X.  V.)  341.  See  also  Picker- 
ing z'.  de  Rochemont,  66  N.  H.  377. 

Necessity  of  Recording  Warning.  —  Sherwin  v. 
Bugbee.    17    \t.  337. 

Return  of  Officer  as  Evidence  of  Proper  Service 
of  Warrant. —  Perry  z\  Dover,  12  Pick.  (Mass.) 
206. 

Necessity  of  Fixing  Time  and  Place  at  Preceding 
Annual  Meeting.  —  Merchant  f.  Langvvorthy,  6 
Hill  (N.  V.)  646.  Compare  Sanborn  z:  School 
Dist.  No.  10.  12  Minn.  17;  Maher  v.  State,  32 
Neb.  354. 

7.  Jordan  z:  School  Dist.  No.  3,  38  Me.  164; 
Haines  z-.  School  Dist.  No.  6,  41  Me.  246; 
Rideout  z:  School  Dist.  No.  5,  i  Allen  (Mass.) 
232  ;  People  z'.  Peters.  4  Neb.  254. 

But  in  Marchant  z\  Langworthy,  6  Hill  (N. 
Y.)  646.  it  was  held  that  an  annual  meeting  of 
the  inhabitants  of  a  school  district  is  valid,  not- 
withstanding the  clerk  has  omitted  to  give  notice 
of  it,  provided  the  time  and  place  for  holding  it 
were  fi.xed  at  the  next  preceding  annual  meeting, 
and  the  clerk  acted  in  good  faith  in  failing  to 
give  notice. 

Presumption  of  Regularity.  —  \\'aters  v.  School 
Dist.  No.  4.  50  Mo.  App.  580. 

Regularity  of  Warrant  Not  Subject  to  Collateral 
Attack.  —  In  Woods  z\  Bristol,  84  Me.  358.  it 
was  held  that  the  regularity  of  a  warrant  calling 
a  meeting  cannot  be  contradicted  in  a  collateral 
proceeding  by  parol  proof  that  while  on  its  face 
it  appears  to  have  been  drawn,  signed,  and  dated 
in  the  state,  it  was  actually  written  and  signed 
in  another  state. 

Volume  XXV. 


School  District* 


SCHOOLS. 


Meetings. 


school  district  meeting  to  set  out  the  object  thereof,  no  matters  can  be  law- 
fully acted  upon  that  arc  not  distinctly  stated  in  the  notice.*  Where  a  meet- 
ing is  for  a  special  purpose,  all  that  is  requisite  in  the  form  of  the  notice 
is  that  it  be  so  expressed  that  the  inhabitants  of  the  district  may  faiily 
understand  the  purpose  for  whicli  they  are  convened.* 

Time  and  Place  of  Meeting  Specified  in  Statute.  —  If  the  statute  designates  the  time 
and  plice  for  the  meeting,  this  is  held  to  obviate  the  necessity  of  stating  it 
in  the  notice. •* 

c.  Time  of  Opening  Meeting.  —  It  has  been  held  that  the  meeting 
should  be  opened  at  a  reasonable  time  after  the  hour  specified  in  the  notice, 
and  what  is  a  reasonable  time  depends  in  some  measure  upon  the  circum- 
stances of  each  particular  case.  The  presumption  is  that  a  meeting  was  held 
at  the  proper  time  and  in  pursuance  of  the  warning,  and  the  burden  of  proof 
is  upon  the  person  claiming  that  the  proceedings  were  illegal.'* 

Adjournment  to  Fixed  Time.  —  A  meeting,  it  has  been  held,  may  adjourn  to  a 
fixed  time,  and  at  such  adjourned  meeting  any  matters  included  in  the  notice 
of  the  former  meeting  may  be  reconsidered  or  acted  upon,  provided  no 
intervening  rights  of  third  parties  have  become  vested.^ 

d.  Place  of  Meeting.  —The  place  of  meeting  is  usually  specified  in  the 
statute  or  in  the  notice  of  the  meeting,  and,  as  a  general  rule,  it  sccins  that 
the  proceedings,  to  be  valid,  must  be  had  at  that  place. *^  But  the  proceed- 
ings of  a  meeting,  it  has  been  held,  will  not  be  invalid  though  it  is  not  held 
at  the  place  specified  in  the  notice,  where  the  place  of  actual  meeting  was 
near  by  and  no  0!ie  was  misled,  all  persons  going  to  the  place  designated  "being 
notified  where  the  meeting  was  to  be  conducted.' 

c.  Presiding  Officer.  —  Various  statutory  provisions  exist  prescribing 
who  shall  act  as  chairman  or  moderator  of  the  school  meeting.^ 

/.  Voting. —  Unless  restrained  by  some  statute,  it  has  been  held  that 
balloting  may  be  adopted  as  the  method  of  voting  at  a  school  district 
mcetmc;.^ 


1.  Statement  of  Object  of  Meeting  Required  — 

Coimccticul.  —  Wright  r.  North  School  Dist., 
53  Conn.  576. 

Idaho.  —  Brainwell  v.  Guheen,  2  Idaho   1069. 

Maine.  —  Lander  f .  School  Dist.,  33  Me.  239  ; 
Leavitt  f.  Eastman.  77  Me.  117. 

Massachusetts.  —  Whitney  r*.  Stow.  11 1  Mass. 
368;  Little  z'.  Merrill,  10  Pick.  (Mass.)  543; 
Alden  r.  Rounseville,  7  Met.  (Mass.)  218; 
Kingsbury  z:  Centre  School  Dist.,  12  Met. 
(Mass.)    99. 

Missouri.  —  Matney  z:  Boydston,  27  Mo.  App. 
36. 

Nezv  Hampshire. — Davis  z'.  School  Dist.,  43 
N.  H.  381;  Weare  v.  Sawyer,  44  N.  H.  198; 
Weare  r.  School  Dist.  No.  Sixteen,  44  N.  H. 
i8g:    Holbrook  v.  Faulkner.  55   N.  H.  311. 

Nczv  Jersey.  —  State  v.  HuriT,  38  N.  ].  L.  310. 

Rhode  Island.  —  Holt's  Appeal.   5  R.  I.  603. 

Vermont.  —  Dix  v.  School  Dist.  No.  2,  22  Vt. 
300 ;  Ovitt  V.  Chase,  37  Vt.  196  ;  Scott  v.  School 
Dist.  No.  9,  67  Vt.  150;  School  Dist.  No.  13  v. 
Smith.  67  Vt.  566. 

Object  of  Meeting  Held  Unnecessary  in  Notice 
of  Annual  Meeting.  —  Seaburv  f.  Howland.  15  R. 
I.   44('. 

2.  Sufficiency  of  Notice  of  Object  —  Connecti- 
cut.—Sxml  School  Dist.  f.  Blakeslee,  13  Conn. 
2-'7  :   Bartlett  v.  Kinsley.  15  Conn.  327. 

Massachusetts.  —  George  v.  Second  School 
Dist.,  6  Met.  (Mass.)  497;  Reed  v.  Acton,  117 
Mass.  384. 


Michigan.  —  Peters  v.  Warren  Tp.,  98  Mich. 
54. 

Minnesota.  —  State  v.  St.  Anthony,  10  Minn. 
433- 

Nczv  York.  —  People  v.  Board  of  Education. 
(Supm.  Ct.  Gen.  T.)   i  N.  Y.  Supp.  593. 

Rhode  Island.  —  Seabury  z\  Howland,  15  R. 
I.  446. 

Vermont.  —  Weeks  v.  Batcheldcr,  41  Vt. 
317. 

Omission  of  Copulative  Conjunction  Immaterial 
Where  Meaning  Is  Clear.  —  Merritt  v.  Farriss, 
22   111.  303. 

3.  Hodgkin  v.  Fry,  33  .\rV.  716;  State  v.  Ed- 
wards.  151  Mo.  472. 

4.  South  School  Dist.  -'.  Blakeslee,  13  Conn. 
227. 

5.  Adjournment  to  Fixed  Time.  —  Reed  7'. 
Acton,  117  Mass.  384;  Maher  z\  State,  32  Neb. 
354.     Compare  State  v.  Cones,   15   Neb.  444. 

6.  Sec  Hodgkin  v.  Fry,  33  Ark.  716;  Wake- 
field V.  Patterson.  25  Kan.  709;  Board  of  Edu- 
cation f.  Carolan,  182  111.  119;  Hauswirth  v. 
Mueller.   25   Mont.    156. 

7.  Wakefield  v.   Patterson,   25   Kan.  709. 

8.  State  z\  McKee,  20  Oregon  120;  Stevens 
t'.  Kent,  26  Vt.  502.  And  see  the  statutes  of  the 
various  states. 

Appointment  of  Secretary  Pro  Tem  in  Absence 
of   Clerk.  —  State  z\  McKee.  20  Oregon  120. 

9.  Ciianiberlain  v.  Board  of  Education,  57  N. 
J.   L.   605. 

Volume  XXV. 


School  Districts. 


SCHOOLS. 


Powers  and  Liabilities. 


Eecord  of  Votes.  —  Under  a  statutory  requirement  that  if  a  given  luunber 
present  at  a  district  meeting  vote  adversely  on  a  {)roposiiion,  the  clerk  shall 
make  a  record  of  the  fact,  it  is  not  liis  duty  to  record  the  names  of  those  so 
voting;  it  is  sufficient  if  he  records  the  state  of  the  vote.* 

Conclusiveness  of  Kecords  as  to  Balloting.  —  Evidence  aliunde  the  district  records  is 
admissible  to  show  what  the  actual  facts  cire  as  to  the  results  of  the  balloting.* 

g.  Qualification  of  Voifrs. — A  discussion  of  questions  as  to  the 
qualification  of  voters  at  school  meetings  will  be  found  elsewhere.-* 

h.  Record  of  Meeting — -Necessity. —  Under  the  statutes  of  some  states 
a  record  of  the  proceedings  of  school  district  meetings  must  be  kept  by  the 
I)roper  officers.* 

Records  as  Evidence.  —  The  records  of  a  school  district  are  proper  anJ  kgiti- 
m.ite  evidence  of  its  proceedings,  for  such  district,  in  a  suit  to  which  it  is  a 
party.  ^ 

Admissibility  of  Secondary  Evidence.  —  If  the  original  records  have  been  lost,  after 
proof  of  that  fact  their  contents  may  be  proved,  like  any  other  document,  by 
secondary  evidence.® 

Amendment.  —  While  the  records  may,  under  certain  circumstances,  be 
amciiJed.''  yet  it  has  been  held  that  the  amendment  of  a  record  by  an  officer 
when  a  controversy  has  arisen,  to  meet  a  particular  case  or  in  con.sequence  of 
a  decision  of  the  court,  will  not  be  allowed.^ 

5.  Powers  and  Liabilities  —  a.  In  General.  — A  school  district,  though 
generally  a  body  corporate  and  authorized  to- transact  all  business  appertain- 
ing to  schools  and  schoolhouses  within  the  district,  cm  exercise  no  powers 
beyond  those  expressly  conferred  by  statute  or  by  nectssar}'  inq^lication 
arising  therefrom.* 

Powers  at  Special  or  Annual  Meeting.  —  In  some  states  the  powers  of  a  special 
meeting  of  a  school  district  are  the  same  as  those  of  an  annual  meeting.'" 

Bailey,  12  Me. 


1.  Norton  v.  Perry,  65   Me.    183. 

2.  State  V.  Hutchins,  a  Neb.  335. 

3.  See  the  title  Elections,  vol.  10,  pp.  577 
et  scq.,  589  et  seq.  And  see  State  v.  Hingley, 
32  Oregon  440. 

Women  as  Voters.  —  See  the  title  Elections, 
vol.  10,  p.  592.  And  see  Harris  v.  Burr,  32 
Oregon  348 :  State  v.  Board  of  Education,  57 
N.  j.   L.  605;   McLain  v.  Maricle,   60  Neb.   353. 

4.  Record  of  Meeting.  —  Higgins  v.  Reed,  8 
Iowa  298.  See  also  Sherwin  v.  Bugbee,  17  Vt. 
327- 

5.  Records  as  Evidence.  —  South  School  Dist. 
V.  Blakeslee,  13  Conn.  227;  Bartlett  v.  Kinsley, 
15  Conn.  327;  Williams  i'.  School  Dist.  No.  i, 
21  Pick.  (Mass.)  75-  3-2  Am.  Dec.  243;  Con- 
verse V.  Porter,  45  N.  H.  385  ;  State  v.  McKee, 
20  Oregon  120;  Sherwin  t'.  Bugbee,  17  Vt.  337  ; 
Richardson   t'.   Sheldon,    i    Pinn.    (Wis.)    624. 

Record  as  Prima  Facie  Evidence  of  Regularity 
of  Notice  of  Meeting. —  Sanborn  f.  School  Dist. 
No.  10.  12  Minn.  17;  Mahcr  7\  State.  ^2  Neb. 
360:  Howland  T'.  School   Dist.  Xo.  3.  iS   R-  L  184. 

The  District  Clerk's  Official  Certificate  of  pro- 
ceedings imports  verity  only  as  to  those  matters 
upon  which  the  district  might  lawfully  act. 
Wilson  V.  Waltersville  School  Dist.,  44  Conn. 
159- 

6.  Higgins  v.  Reed,  8  Iowa  298. 

7.  For  a  discussion  of  the  question  who 
may  amend  the  record,  see  the  title  Records, 
vol.  24,  p.   180  ct  scq. 

8.  Hadley  v.  Chamherlin.    11    \'t.   618. 

9.  Powers  of  School  Districts  in  General  — 
Arkansas.  —  School  Dist.  No.  3  v.  Boden- 
hamer,  43  Ark.    140. 


Dist.       -'. 

•.  Tlionip- 
School  Dist.  No. 
Brainerd    School 


School     Dist.,     25 


43 


Maine.  —  School  Dist.  No 
254- 

Massacliusetls.  —  Third       School 
Atherton,    12  Met.    (Mass.)    105. 

Minnesota.  —  School    Dist.    No.    ; 
son,  5   Minn.  280  ;   Sanljorn 
10,     12    Minn.     17;    Bank    t 
Dist.,  49    Minn.    106. 

Missouri.  —  Buchanan     ?•. 
Mo.  App.  85. 

Montana. — Jay  v.  School  Dist.  No.  i,  24 
Mont.  219. 

New  Hampshire.  —  Denniston  f.  School  Dist. 
No.  II,  17  N.  H.  492;  Harris  f.  School  Dist. 
No.  10,  28  N.  H.  61;  Farnum"s  Petition,  31 
N.  H.  376. 

Nezv  York.  —  Porter  r.  Robinson,  30  Hini 
(N.  Y.)  209;  Gould  V.  Board  of  Education.  34 
Hun   (N.  Y.)    16. 

.901(^/1  Carolina. —  Stater.  Bacon,  31  S.  Car. 
120. 

JVcst  Virginia.  —  Board  of  Education  v. 
Board  of  Education.  30  W.  Va.  424. 

See  also  Bush  r.  Shipnian.  5  111.  1S6  :  Beach  ?'. 
Leahy,   1 1   Kan.  29. 

As  to  the  power  of  a  school  district  to  tax  its 
inhabitants,  see  the  title  Taxation'. 

Power  of  District  to  Recognize  and  Pay  Equi- 
table though  Not  Strictly  Legal  Claims.  —  Stock- 
dale  ?•.   School    Dist.   Xo.   Two,   47   Mich.   226. 

The  district  may  acknowledge  n  flel)t  so  as  to 
take  it  out  of  the  operation  of  the  statute  of 
limitations.  Sanborn  t'.  School  Dist.  No.  10,  12 
Minn.   17. 

10.  Sanborn  v.  School  Dist.  No.  10.  12  Minn. 
17:    Maher  zi.  State,  32  Neb.  354. 

Volume  XXV. 


School  Districts. 


SCHOOLS. 


Powers  and  Liabilities. 


/;.  ExERCiSK  OF  Powers  by  Officers  and  Agents.  —  In  the  exercise  of 
these  powers,  the  district,  like  municipal  corporations  generally,  is  represented 
by  its  lawfully  authorized  officers  and  agents,  and  is  liable  for  such  acts  of  the 
hitter  as  are  within  the  scope  of  the  authority  vested  in  them  either  by  statute 
or  by  vote  of  the  inhabitants.* 

c.  Power  to  Contract.  —  School  districts  are  usually  vested  with  the 
power  of  making  contracts  in  relation  to  school  matters.* 

Borrowing  Money  and  Issuance  of  Bonds.  —  Thus,  they  are  often  empowered  to 
borrow  nionc)-  for  certain  purposes  and  to  issue  bonds  for  the  indebtedness.-* 

Constitutional  or  Statutory  Limitations.  — •  Various  constitutional  or  statutory 
limitations  arc  imposed  in  the  different  states  upon  the  power  of  school  dis- 
tricts to  borrow  money  and  to  issue  bonds  for  such  indebtedness.*  And  pur- 
chasers of  bonds  issued  by  a  school  district  are  bound,  at  their  peril,  to  take 

In  NeiiJ  Jersey  a  special  meeting  of  a  school  Illinois. — •  Folsom  v.  School  Directors,  91   111. 

district,  duly  called,  may  vote  to  raise  money 
tor  school  purposes  although  the  same  pro- 
posal has  been  adversely  considered  at  a  prior 
annual  or  special  meeting  in  the  same  year. 
State  V.  Lewis,  35  N.  J.  L.  277  ;  Stackhouse  v. 
Clark,  52  N.  J.  L.  291.  Compare  Mason  v. 
School   Dist.  No.  14,  20  Vt.  487. 

1.  Exercise  of  Powers  by  Officers  and  Agents.  — 
Princeton  School  Town  v.  Gebhart,  61  Ind.  187; 
Conklin  i\  School  Dist.  No.  ^y,  22  Kan.  521  ; 
Kingsbury  v.  Centre  School  Dist.,  12  Met. 
(Mass.)  qg  :  Edinburg  American  Land,  etc.,  Co. 
f.   Mitchell,    I    S.  Dak.  593. 

What  Amounts  to  Ratification  of  Officers'  Unau- 
thorized Acts  —  Dakota.  —  Capital  Bank  v. 
School   Dist.    No.   85,   6   Dak.   248. 

Indiana. —  Milford  v.   Powner,    126  Ind.   528. 

lo'ia.  —  Dubuque  Female  College  z\  District 
Tp.,  13  Iowa  555;  Taylor  v.  District  Tp.,  25 
Iowa  447  ;  Everts  v.  District  Tp.,  ~y  Iowa  37, 
14  Am.   St.   Rep.   264. 

Kansas.  —  School  Dist.  No.  17  v.  Swayze,  29 
Kan.  211. 

Maine.  —  Norris  f.  School  Dist.  No.  i,  12 
Me.  293,  28  Am.  Dec.  182;  Davis  v.  School 
Dist.  No.  2,  24  Me.  349 ;  School  Dist.  No.  6  v. 
^tna  Ins.  Co.,  62  Me.  330. 

Michigan.  —  Gibson  v.  School  Dist.  No.  5, 
36  Mich.  404. 

Minnesota.  —  Sanborn  v.  School  Dist.  No. 
10,  12  Minn.  17;  Andrews  v.  School  Dist.  No. 
4,  37  Minn.  96. 

Vermont.  —  Kimball  v.  School  Dist.  No.  8,  28 
Vt.  8. 

Wisconsin.  —  Kane  r.    School    Dist.,    52   Wis. 


Eight  of  Agent  to  Reimbursement  for  Money 
Paid  in  Authorized  Transaction.  -  Kingman  v. 
School  Dist.  No.  Thirteen.  2  Cush.  (Mass.) 
426  [distinguishing  Hayward  v.  School  Dist. 
No.  Thirteen,  2  Cush.  (Mass.)  410]  ;  Fohes  v. 
School    Dist..    in   Wis.    117. 

2.  Power  to  Contract.  —  Baker  v.  Chambles,  4 
Greene  (Iowa)  428.  And  see  the  statutes  of 
the   various   states. 

Contracts  Held  Not  Authorized  by  Statute.  — 
Snoddy  z\  Wabash  School  Tp.,  17  Ind.  App. 
284:  Estes  r.  School  Dist.  No.  19,  33  Me.  170; 
Littlewort  v.  Davis,  50  Miss.  403  ;  Markey  7'. 
School  Dist.  No.   18.  58  Neb.  470. 

3.  Power  to  Borrow  Money  and  Issue  Bonds  — 
California. —  People  f.  Caruthers  School  Dist.. 
102  Cal.  184;  Hamilton  v.  San  Diego  County, 
108  Cal.  273. 


44 


402. 

Indiana.  —  Campbell  v.  Indianapolis,  155  Ind. 
186. 

loxva.  —  Austin  v.  District  Tp.,   51    Iowa   102. 

Michigan.  —  McCurdy  v.  School  Dist.  No.  i, 
127   Mich.  210,  8   Detroit  Leg.   N.  320. 

Missouri.  —  Bauer  v.  School  Dist.  No.  127, 
78    i\Io.   App.   442,   2   Mo.  App.   Rep.   253. 

Montana.  —  Hauswirth  v.  Mueller,  25  Mont. 
156. 

Nebraska.  —  Fullerton  v.  School  Dist.,  41 
Neb.  593;  State  v.  Moore,  45  Neb.  12;  Jacob- 
son  V.  Gary,  51  Neb.  762;  State  v.  School  Dist. 
No.  24,  13  Neb.  78. 

New  Jersey.  —  Chamberlain  i\  Board  of  Edu- 
cation, 58  N.  J.  L.  347. 

Oregon.  —  Vaughn  t'.  School  Dist.  No.  Thirty- 
One,   27  Oregon  57. 

Pennsylvania.  —  Connellsville  Second  Nat. 
Bank  -•.  School  Dist.,  23  Pa.  Co.  Ct.  636  ;  Lan- 
caster City  School  Dist.  v.  Lamprecht  Bros. 
Co.,   198  Pa.  St.  504. 

South  Dakota.  —  Livingston  v.  School  Dist. 
No.    7,   9    S.    Dak.   345. 

rcxas.  —  Brownson  r.   Smith,  93  Tex.  614. 

Issuance  of  Promissory  Notes,  —  Sheffield 
School  Tp.  f.  .Andrcss.  56  Ind.  157:  Clarke  v. 
School   Dist.   Xo.   7,  3    R.   I.   199. 

Liability  of  School  District  for  Money  Advanced 
in  Good  Faith  on  Bonds  Not  Issued  in  Compliance 
with  Statute.  —  State  -'.  Dickerman,  16  Mont. 
278. 

4.  Limitations  upon  Power  to  Contract  In- 
debtedness.—fjuVt-ff  States.  —  Jamison  f.  In- 
dependent School  Dist.,  90  Fed.  Rep.  387  ; 
Everett  z'.  Independent  School  Dist.,  109  Fed. 
Rep.  697. 

Indiana.  —  Campbell  v.  Indianapolis,  155  Ind. 
186. 

lozvii.  —  Winspear  v.  District  Tp.,  37  Iowa 
542 ;  Wcrmley  v.  District  Tp.,  45  Iowa  (566 ; 
Curry  ?'.  District  Tp.,  62  Iowa  102;  Hollidayr'. 
Hilderbrandt.  97  Iowa  177:  Edmundson  v. 
Independent  School  Dist.,  98  Iowa  639,  60  Am. 
St.  Rep.  224. 

South  Dakota.  —  Wilson  v.  Board  of  Educa- 
tion.   T.T   S.   Dak.   535. 

Validity  of  Judgment  for  Debt  Contracted  in 
Violation  of  Constitutional  Limitation.  —  Edmund- 
son  ?'.  Indi'peiiilent  School  Dist.,  98  Iowa  639, 
60  Am.  St.  Rep.  224.  distinguishing  Kane  v. 
Independent   School   Dist.,   82    Iowa    5. 

Vote  for  Unlawful  Amount  of  Indebtedness  Oper- 
ative to   Authorize   Lawful   Amount. —  Vaughan 
Volume  XXV, 


School  Districts. 


SCHOOLS. 


Powers  and  Liabilities. 


notice  of  the  constitutional  limitation  of  the  power  of  such  corporations  to 
become  indebted.* 

d.  Acquiring  and  Holding  Lands. — So  school  districts  are  usually 
vested  with  the  power  of  acquiring  and  holding  lands  and  other  property  for 
school  purposes.*-* 

e.  Capacity  to  Sue  and  Be  Sued. — The  statutes  usually  invest  the 
school  districts  with  the  capacity  of  suing  and  being  sued.^ 

Employment  of  Attorneys.  ■ —  So  they  may,  as  a  general  rule,  appoint  and  instruct 
agents  or  attorneys  to  conduct  and  defend  such  suits  as  the  district  may  be 
involved  in.* 

/.  Power  to  Submit  Matters  to  Arbitration.  —  As  a  consequence 
of  the  statutory  power  to  sue  and  to  be  sued  it  seems  that  a  school  district 
may  submit  a  question  in  dispute  to  arbitration.* 

g.  Liability  for  Negligence  or  Trespass  by  Officers  or  Agents. 
—  In  the  absence  of  statute,  a  school  district  is  not  liable  in  actions  sounding 
in  damages  for  the  wrongful  acts  of  its  agents.®  Thus,  no  liability  attaches 
to  a  school  district  for  trespasses  '  or  acts  of  negligence  **  committed  by  its 
officers  or  agents,  unless  such  liability  is  imposed  by  statute. 

h.  Liability  to  Execution  of  Private  Property  of  Inhabitant.  — 
It  has  been  held  that  where  a  judgment  has  been  obtained  against  a  school 
district,  the  private  property  of  an  individual  member  of  the  district  may  be 


V.  School  Dist.  No.  Thirty-One,  27  Oregon  57  ; 
Stockdale  v.  School  Dist.  No.  Two,  47  Mich. 
226. 

1.  Holliday  v.  Hilderbrandt,  97  Iowa  177- 

2.  Power  to  Acquire  and  Hold  Lands.  —  Car- 
son V.  State,  27  Ind.  465  ;  Baker  v.  Chamble^:, 
4  Greene  (Iowa)  428 ;  School  Dist.  No.  3  v. 
Greenfield,  64  N.  H.  84;  Le  Couteulx  v.  Buffalo, 
33  N.  Y.  335  ;  Betts  v.  Betts,  (Supm.  Ct.  Spec. 
T.)   4  Abb.  N.  Cas.    (N.  Y.)    317- 

Acquiring  Highway  for  Access  to  Schoolhouse. 

—  Locker  7'.  Keller,    iio  Iowa  707. 

Title  Not  Lost  by  Nonuser  for  Less  than 
Twenty  Years.  —  Roble  v.  Sedgwick,  35  Barb. 
(X.    v.)    .519- 

What  Amounts  to  Abandonment  of  Land  Granted 
to  District  for  School  Purposes  Only.  —  Barber  v. 
Stlionl    Trustees,    51    111.    396. 

Validity  of  Contract  for  Maintenance  of  Division 
Fences.—  Alhri-ht  v.  Kiker,  22  Hun  (N.  Y.) 
367. 

3.  Capacity  to   Sue  and  Be   Sued. — Arkansas. 

—  Cloud  V.  Danley,  16  Ark.  699;  Tatum  v. 
Tatum.  19  Ark.  194;  School  Dist.  No.  11  v. 
Williams,  38  Ark.  454 :  School  Dist.  No.  3 
V.  Bodenhamer,  43   Ark.   140. 

California.  —  Board  of  Education  v.  Fowler, 
19  Cal.   II. 

Connecticut.  —  McLoud  v.  Selby,  10  Conn. 
390,  27  Am.  Dec.  689 :  South  School  Dist.  v. 
Blakeslee,  13  Conn.  227. 

Illinois.^  Moore  v.    School   Trustees.    19    III. 

83. 

Kansas.  —  School  Dist.  No.  49  v.  School 
Dist.  No.  70,  20  Kan.   76. 

Maine. — Junkins  r.  L^nion  School  Dist.,  39 
Me.   220. 

Massachusetts. — Fourth  Scliool-Dist.  v.  Wood, 
13  Mass.  192. 

Nebraska.  —  Donnelly  f.  Duras,  1 1  Neb. 
283. 

iVrrc  Hampshire.  —  Denniston  r.  School  Dist. 
No.  II.  17  N.  H.  492;  School-Dist.  v.  Pills- 
bur>',  58  N.  H.  424. 


45 


Nciu  York.  —  Gould  v.  Board  of  Education, 
34  Hun  (N.  Y.)   16. 

Pennsylvania.  —  Barnet  v.  School  Directors, 
6  W.  &  S.   (Pa.)   46. 

IVisconsiti.  —  School  Dist.  No.  3  v.  Macloon, 
4   Wis.    79. 

Suit  by  District  for  Trespass.  —  Barber  v. 
School  Trustees,  51  111.  396:  Alderman  v. 
School  Directors,  91  111.  179;  Chaplin  v.  Hill, 
24  Vt.   528. 

Action  of  Ejectment  by  District.  —  Klinkener 
v.   School   Directors,    11    Pa.   St.  444. 

Action  Against  Agent  to  Recover  School  Money. 
—  School  Dist.  V.  Tuttle,  26  N.  H.  470;  School 
Dist.  No.  7  V.  Sherburne,  48  N.  H.  52.  See 
also  School  Dist.  v.  Esty,  16  N.  H.  146;  Bar- 
rett V.  School  Dist.  No.  2,  27  N.  H.  449.  Com- 
pare School  Dist.  No.  3  v.  Brooks,  23  Me.  543. 

Power  to  Raise  Money  to  Defray  Expenses  ol 
Litigation.  —  School  Dist.  No.  i  v.  Bailey,  12 
Me.   254. 

4.  Employment  of  Attorneys.  —  State  v.  Aven, 
70  Ark.  291  ;  Page  v.  Township  Board  of  Edu- 
cation, 59  Mo.  264 ;  Denniston  v.  School  Dist. 
No.  II,  17  N.  H.  492;  Gould  t'.  Board  of  Edu- 
cation, 34  Hun  (N.  Y.)  16.  See  also  Templin 
V.  District  Tp.,  36  Iowa  411;  Bassett  v.  Fish, 
75  N.  Y.  303  ;  Harrington  v.  Sixth  School  Dist., 
30  Vt.  iss;  McCafirey  v.  School  Dist.  No.  i, 
74   Wis.    100. 

5.  District  Tp.  v.  Rankin,  70  Iowa  65. 

6.  McClure  r.  School  Dist.,   79  Mo.  App.  80. 

7.  School  Dist.  No.  11  v.  Williams,  38  Ark. 
454- 

81  State  V.  School  Com'rs,  94  Md.  334 ;  Bank 
J'.  Brainerd  School  Dist.,  49  Minn.  106;  School 
Dist.  V.  Fuess,  98  Pa.  St.  600,  42  Am.  Rep. 
627 ;  Ford  v.  Kendall  Borough  School  Dist., 
121  Pa.  St.  543.  See  also  Bassett  i'.  Fish,  75 
N.  Y.  303. 

Statute  Making  Board  of  Commissioners  Capable 
of  Suing  and  Being  Sued  Held  Not  to  Impose  Lia- 
bility for  Negligence.  —  State  v.  School  Com'rs 
94  Md.  334- 

Volume  XXV, 


hool  Buildings, 


SCHOOLS. 


Erection  or  Acquisition. 


taken  in  satisfaction  thereof;*  but  in  such  case  it  seems  the  district  is  h'able 
over  to  the  member.* 

6.  Dissolution  and  Abolition.  —  In  the  absence  of  any  constitutional  prohi- 
bition it  is  within  the  power  of  the  legislature  to  dissolve  at  pleasure  an  exist- 
ini;-  district,  either  by  consohdation,  or  by  dividing  it  into  two  or  more  districts, 
t>r  by  abolishing  it  altogether.* 

Converting  Organized  into  Unorganized  Territory  Not  Favored.  —  In  several  jurisdictions 
the  policy  of  the  law  has  been  declared  to  be  that  territory  once  organized  for 
school  purposes  must  always  remain  in  some  jurisdiction,  and  that  in  the 
absence  of  express  statutory  provision  it  may  not  be  detached  from  the  juris- 
diction to  which  it  belongs  without  at  the  same  time  becoming  all  or  part  of 
another  jurisdiction  for  school  purposes.* 

VII.  School  Buildings — 1.  Erection  or  Acquisition  —  a.  AuriiORiTV  to 
Erect.  —  The  power  to  provide  schoolhouses  by  building,  purchasing,  or 
hiring  the  same,  and  to  determine  and  raise  the  amount  of  money  necessary 
to   be  expended    for  this  purpose,  is   usually  vested   in   the  school  district.* 


1.  McLoud  V.  Selby,  lo  Conn.  390,  2j  Am. 
Dec.  689  ;  Kenyon  v.  Clarke,  2  R.  I.  67  ;  Gaskill 
V.  Dudley,  6  Met.  (Mass.)  546,  39  Am.  Dec. 
75(1,  where  it  was  further  said  that  the  property 
of  an  individual  may  he  so  taken  in  the  first 
instance,  even  if  there  is  corporate  property  of 
the  district  which  can  he  taken  and  applied 
towards  satisfaction  of   such  execution. 

2.  Gaskill  v.  Dudley,  6  Met.  (Mass.)  546, 
39  -A-m.  Dec.  750  :  Miller  v.  East  School  Disl., 
26   Conn.    521. 

3.  Dissolution  and  Abolition  of  Districts.  — 
Whitney  v.  Stow,  1 1 1  Mass.  368 ;  Rawson  v. 
Spencer,  113  Mass.  40;  School-Dist.  No.  16  v. 
Concord.  64  M.  H.  235. 

Statute  Abolishing  School  Districts  and  Consti- 
tuting Each  Town  a  Single  District. —  Con- 
over  V.  Parker,  57  X.  J.  L.  631  ;  Barre  v.  School 
Dist.  No.  13,  67  Vt.  108;  Dodge  v.  South 
Royalton  Graded  School  Dist.,  67  Vt.  334.  See 
also  Lathrop  'o.  Sunderland,  64  Vt.  35.  Com- 
pare State  V.  Barrett,  31  N.  J.  L.  31  ;  State  v. 
Jacobus,  26  N.  J.  L.   135. 

Power  to  Abolish  Districts  Within  Township 
Vested  in  Township  or  Township  Trustees.  — 
Young  V.  Bethany,  73  Conn.  166;  State  t'.  Wil- 
son, 149  Ind.  253;  Tufts  V.  State,  119  Ind.  22,2; 
State  V.  Sherman,  00  Ind.  123;  Mendell  v. 
Marion,  16  Gray  (Mass.)  353  ;  Child  v.  Col- 
burn,   54   N.   H.   71. 

Power  Vested  in  School  Inspectors  with  Consent 
of  Majority  of  Resident  Taxpayers.  —  Briggs  v. 
Borden,  71  Mich.  87.  Compare  School  Dist. 
No.  Thirteen  v.  Dean.  17  Mich.  223;  People  v. 
Davidson,    2   Dougl.    (Mirh.l    121. 

Making  Dissolution  of  District  Dependent  upon 
Will  of  Voters  Held  Constitutional.  —  St.ite  v. 
Coolcy,    65    Minn.    406. 

Power  to  Abolish  Independent  Districts  Vested 
in  Courts. —  In  re  Lagrange  Independent  School 
Dist.,  7  Ta.  Dist.  719;  In  re  Braintrim  Inde- 
pendent School  Dist.,  22  Pa.  Co.  Ct.  190:  In- 
dependent School  Dist..  19  Pa.  Co.  Ct.  452. 

Dissolution  of  Union  School  Districts,  —  Bowen 
:•.  King.  34  Vt.  156.  See  also  Badger  t'.  Knapn. 
7  111.  .Vpp.  2zz:  Lathrop  v.  Sunderland,  64  Vt. 
I'-.  :    Pierce  f.   Whitman.    23    \"t.   626. 

■Regularity  of  Dissolution  Held  Not  Subject  to 
Collateral  Attack.  —  Smith  ;•.  Coman.  47  N.  Y. 
App.  Div.  116. 

4.  District  Tp.  v.  Independent  Dist.,  82  Iowa 


46 


10;  Perry  T'.  Dover.  12  Pick.  (Mass.)  206;  State 
V.  Rice,  35  Wis.   178. 

5.  Power  of  District  to  Provide  School  Building 
—  United  States.  —  Capital  Bank  v.  School  Dist. 
No.  26.  (C.  C.  A.)  63  Fed.  Rep.  938  (decided 
under  Dakota  statute). 

Connecticut.  —  Sheldon  v.  Centre  School 
Dist.,  25  Conn.  224  ;  Colt  v.  Roberts,  28  Conn. 
330  :  Gilman  v.  Bassett,  s:i  Conn.  298. 

Dakota.  —  Farmers',  etc.,  Nat.  Bank  v.  School 
Dist.  No.  53,  6  Dak.  255 ;  Capital  Bank  v. 
School   Dist.  No.  85,  6  Dak.  248. 

Kansas.  —  School  Dist.  No.  80  v.  Brown,  2 
Kan.  App.  309. 

Massachusetts.  —  George  v.  Second  School 
Dist.,  6  Met.  (Mass.)  497. 

Michigan.  —  Peters  v.  Warren  Tp.,  98  Mich. 
54- 

Nebraska.  —  School  Dist.  No.  2  v.  Stough,  4 
^'eb.  357;  Gehling  v.  School  Dist.  No.  56,  10 
Neb.  239;  School  Dist.  No.  35  v.  Randolph,  57 
Neb.  546. 

New  Hampshire.  —  Blake  v.  Sturtevant,  12 
N.  H.  567. 

Nc'v  York.  —  Benjamin  v.  Hull,  17  Wend.  (N. 
Y.)  437. 

Oregon.  —  Vaughn  v.  School  Dist.  No.  Thirty- 
One,  27  Oregon  57. 

I'crmont.  —  Greenbanks   z'.    Boutwcll.   43    Vt. 

Power  to  Contract  Indebtedness  as  by  Issuing 
Bonds  for  Building  Purposes.  —  Vaughan  v. 
School  Dist.  No.  Thirty-One,  27  Oregon  57. 
See  also  Folsom  t'.  School  Directors,  91  111.  402. 
But  in  Missouri  the  money  for  this  purpose  is 
required  to  be  raised  by  taxation.  Richardson 
;•.  McReynolds,   114  Mo.  641. 

Power  Vested  in  Officers  upon  Failure  of  District 
to  Act. —  Gilman  7.  Bassett,  33  Conn.  298; 
I'.lake  7'.  Sturtevant,  12  X.  H.  567. 

Power  of  Board  of  Directors  to  Determine 
Amount  to  Be  Raised  upon  Failure  of  Electors  to 
Act.—  Stevenson  7'.   Dist.  Tp..  35   Iowa  462. 

Mechanics'  Liens.  —  The  exemption  of  school 
buildings  from  the  operation  of  mechanics'  liens 
will  be  found  discussed  elsewhere.  See  the  title 
Mechanics'  Ltfn.s,  vol.  20,  p.  295.  .A.nd  see 
JelTrics  7'.  Myers,  9  Ind.  -App.  563. 

Power  to  Require  Bond  from  Contractor  to 
Indemnify  Laborer  or  Materialman.  —  Union 
Sheet  Metal  Works  v.  Dodge,  129  Cal.  390;  St. 
Volume  XXV. 


School  Buildings. 


SCHOOLS. 


Erection  or  Acquisition. 


But  in  some  jurisdictions  the  power  to  build,  hire,  or  purchase  schoolhouses 
is  vested  ill  the  school  trustees  or  other  desii^iialed  officers,* 

Officers  Acting  under  Authority  from  District  Meeting.  —  So,  in  cases  where  the  power 
to  provide  school  buildings  is  primaiily  vested  in  the  school  district,  the  school 
boird,  when  acting  under  directions  of  the  qualified  voters,  is  frequently 
authorized  to  make  contracts  and  superintend  the  erection  of  a  building 
authorized  to  be  built.'  And  in  some  instances,  if  no  one  is  designated  by 
the  electors  for  this  purpose,  the  board  will  be  empowered  to  act.' 

Building  Committee.  —  Under  statute  in  some  jurisdictions  authorizing  school 
districts  to  act  by  agents  in  such  matters,  the  board  may  appoint  a  building 
committee.*  And,  indeed,  under  a  statute  authorizing  the  selection  of  the 
school  board  for  this  purpose,  it  has  been  held  that  the  electors  are  not  obliged 
to  select  the  meinbers  of  the  school  board  as  agents,  but  may  select  such 
person  or  persons  as  will  best  subserve  the  interests  of  the  school  district. ** 

Limitation  of  Power  to  Create  Indebtedness.  —  Under  the  statutes  or  constitutions 
of  the  various  slates  it  has  been  frequently  held  that  school  boards  or  other 
agents  employed  to  provide  school  buildings  are  limited  to  the  amount  appro- 


Louis  Public  Schools  v.  \\'oods,  ^^  Mo.  197; 
Pacific  Mfg.  Co.  v.  School  Dist.  No.  7,  6  Wash. 
121  ;  Maxon  v.  School  Dist.  No.  34,  5  W'asli. 
142 ;  Puget  Sound  Brick,  etc.,  Co.  v.  School 
Dist.  No.  73,  12  Wash.  118;  Wadsworth  v. 
School  Dist.  No.  i,  7  Wash.  485;  Wells  v. 
Board  of  Education,  78  Mich.  260.  See  also 
Staffon  V.  Lyon,  no  Mich.  260. 

In  Hydraulic  Press  Brick  Co.  v.  School  Dist., 
79  Mo.  App.  665,  it  was  held  that  no  action  for 
damages  would  lie  against  the  district  or  dis- 
trict board   for  failure  to  require  such  bond. 

1.  Nicklas's  Petition,  146  Pa.  St.  212;  In  re 
Walker,  179  Pa.  St.  24. 

In  Indiana  it  has  been  held  that  it  is  for  the 
township  trustees  to  provide  the  schoolhouse. 
Crist  7'.  Brownsville  Tp.,  10  Ind.  461  :  Heal  f. 
Jefferson  Tp.,  15  Ind.  431.  See  also  Fatout  r. 
lioard  of  School  Coni'rs,   102   Ind.    223. 

Authority  of  Trustees  to  Erect  New  Building 
upon  Condemnation  of  Old  Building  by  Superin- 
tendent. —  School  Dist.  No.  i  -'.  Jamison,  (  Ky. 
1S91  )    15  S.  W.  Rep.  I. 

Renting  Building.  —  In  some  jurisdictions 
power  is  vested  in  the  school  directors  or  other 
officers  to  hire  a  house  or  room  when  it  be- 
comes necessary.  Scripture  v.  Burns,  59  Iowa 
70;  Allen  V.  School  Dist.  No.  2,  15  Pick. 
(Mass.)  35.  See  also  Clark  v.  Great  Barring- 
ton,  II  Pick.  (Mass.)  260;  Union  College  v. 
Coughlin,  89  Hun  (N.  Y.)  171,  affirmed  (N.  Y. 
1899)  53  N.  E.  Rep.  1 133.  And  this  without 
submitting  the  question  to  the  electors.  School 
Directors  v.  People.  186  111.  331. 

And  it  has  been  held  that  a  board  of  educa- 
tion may.  when  it  becomes  necessary,  rent  a 
building  though  it  had  previously  been  used  as 
a  church.  Millard  v.  Board  of  Education,  19 
111.  App.  48,  121  111.  297.  See  also  Swadley 
V.  Hayncs,  (Tenn.  Ch.  1897)  41  S.  W.  Rep. 
1066. 

■Renting  Building  under  Direction  of  District 
Meeting.  —  Krull  f.   State.  59  Neb.   07. 

Mandamus  to  Compel  Directors  to  Rent  Building. 
—  In  School  Directors  v.  People.  186  111.  331. 
it  was  held  that  it  is  the  duty  of  the  directors 
to  establish  and  maintain  a  school  in  the  dis- 
trict and  to  procure  a  suitable  room  or  rooms 
for  that  purpose,  and  that  they  will  not  be  re- 


47 


lieved  from  this  duty  though  the  electors  have 
failed  to  approve  a  proposition  to  build  a  school- 
house,  and  that  mandamus  will  lie  to  compel 
them  to  perform  this  duty. 

2.  Capital  Bank  v.  School  Dist.  No.  26,  (C. 
C.  A.)  63  Fed.  Rep.  938  (decided  under  Da- 
kola  statute)  ;  Robbins  v.  School  Dist.  No.  i, 
10  Minn.  340;  Mizera  v.  Auten,  45  Neb.  239; 
People  V.  Banfield.  (Supm.  Ct.  Spec.  T.)  6  How. 
Pr.  (N.  Y.)  437. 

Power  of  District  Meeting  to  Select  Board  as 
Agent  Apart  from  Express  Statutory  Authorization. 
— •  lidinburg  American  Land,  etc.,  Co.  v. 
Mitchell.    I    S.  Dak.  503. 

Vote  of  Inhabitants  Held  Necessary  to  Authorize 
School  Trustees  or  Directors  to  Build  Schoolhouse. 
—  Fluty  V.  School  Dist.,  49  Ark.  94 ;  Hale  v. 
Brown,  70  Ark.  471  ;  Shires  v.  Irwin,  87  111. 
App.  in;  School  Directors  v.  Miller.  54  111. 
338  ;  School  Dist.  No.  80  -'.  Brown.  2  Kan.  App. 
309.  Sec  also  Grove  v.  School  Inspectors,  20 
111.  s^-'-  School  Directors  v.  Fogleman,  76  111. 
189;  Board  of  Education  v.  Roehr,  23  111.  App. 
620. 

3.  Sec  Mizera  v.  Auten,  45  Neb.  239. 

4.  Building  Committee.  —  Hill  v.  School  Dist. 
No.  2.  17  Mc.  316;  Junkins  7'.  Union  School 
Dist.,  39  Me.  220 ;  Morse  v.  School  Dist.  No.  7, 
3  Allen  (Mass.)  307 ;  Keyser  v.  School  Dist. 
No.  8,  35  N.   H.  477. 

Contract  for  Construction  Between  Committee 
and  One  of  Its  Members. —  In  Junkins  7'.  Union 
School  Dist.,  39  Me.  220,  it  was  held  that  the 
majority  of  a  building  committee  may  employ 
one  of  their  own  number  to  build  the  school- 
house,  unless  there  are  fraudulent  or  corrupt 
dealings,  and  that  such  member  may  recover  in 
his  own  name  from  the  district  the  amount  of 
his  claim. 

But  in  Weitz  v.  Independent  Dist,  78  Iowa 
T,7,  it  was  held  that  an  agreement  by  a  board 
of  directors  to  employ  one  of  its  members  to 
superintend  the  construction  of  a  school  building 
was  void.  See  also  Moore  7'.  Independent  Dist., 
55  Iowa  654;  People  v.  Township  Board,  11 
Mich.  222. 

5.  Mizera  v.  Auten.  45  Neb.  239.  Compare 
People  V.  Banfield,  (Supm.  Ct.  Spec.  T.)  6  How. 
Pr.  (N.  Y.)  437. 

Volume  XXV. 


School  Buildings. 


SCHOOLS. 


Erection  or  Acquisition, 


priated  by  the  school  district  for  that  purpose,  or  to  some  other  prescribed 
amount,  and  that  they  have  no  power  to  bind  tlie  district  beyond  the  amount 
so  Hmited.*  It  has  been  hehl,  however,  that  a  contract  for  the  erection  of  a 
building  or  for  materials,  though  stipulating  for  an  indebtedness  in  excess  of 
the  limit  fixed  by  statute  or  the  constitution,  may  be  given  effect  up  to  the 
limit  so  prescribed.'-* 

b.  Contract  with  Lowest  Responsible  Bidder.  —  It  is  not  an 
unusual  requirement  in  statutes  regulating  school  districts  that  the  contract 
for  the  erection  of  a  school  building  shall  be  given  to  the  lowest  responsible 
bidder.'  But  where  no  statute  requires  a  school  board  to  advertise  for  pro- 
posals for  the  construction  of  a  public  school  building  or  to  award  the  contract 
to  tlie  lowest  bidder,  the  board  may  make  such  contracts  without  advertising, 
or  if  it  does  advertise  it  may,  in  the  absence  of  bad  faith,  award  the  contract 
to  a  person  other  than  the  lowest  bidder,*  especially  if  the  right  is  expressly 
reserved  to  reject  any  and  all  bids.** 

c.  Ratification  of  Unauthorized  Contract. — Where,  through  an 
informality,  the  contract  for  the  erection  of  a  schoolhouse  is  voidable,  accept- 
ance and  use  of  the  building  by  the  district  will  operate  as  a  ratification  and 
render  the  district  liable  to  the  contractor  for  the  cost  of  the  building.* 
Where,  however,  a  contract  made  by  a  board  for  the  building  of  a  schoolhouse 
is  one  which  the  district  could  not  have  authorized  and  is  absolutely  void  for 
lack  of  corporate  power  in  the  district,  no  subsequent  acts  of  ratification  or 
acceptance  on  the  part  of  the  district  will  give  validity  to  a  claim  for  the  cost 
of  the  building.''     So  it  has  been  held  that  where  money  was  received  and 


1.  Limitation  of  Power  to  Create  Indebtedness. 

—  Geer  v.  School  Dist.  No.  ii,  49  C.  C.  A.  s,sq 
(decided  under  Colorado  statute)  ;  Capital  Bank 
V.  School  Dist.  No.  26,  (C.  C.  A.)  63  Fed.  Rep. 
938  (decided  under  Dakota  statute)  ;  Harris  v. 
School  Dist.  No.  10,  28  N.  H.  58:  Wilson  v. 
School  Dist.  No.  4,  ^2  K.  H.  118;  Capital  Bank 
V.  School  Dist.  No.  53,  i  N.  Dak.  479  ;  Nevil  v. 
Clifford,  63  Wis.  435 ;  McGillivray  v.  Joint 
School  Dist.  No.  i.  112  Wis.  354.  To  the  same 
effect  see  Middleton  z\  Greeson,  106  Ind.  18; 
Roseboom  v.  Jefferson  School  Tp.,  122  Ind. 
Z77.  See  also  Robbins  v.  School  Dist.,  10  Minn. 
340;  School  Dist.  r.  Stough,  4  Neb.  357;  I-u- 
burg"s  Appeal,  (Pa.  i889>  17  Atl.  Rep.  245. 
Compare  Junkins  v.  Union  School  Dist.,  39  Me. 
220 ;  Edinburg-American  Land,  etc.,  Co.  v. 
Mitchell,  (S.  Dak.  1891)  48  N.  W.  Rep.  131; 
Wilson  r.  Board  of  Education,  u  S.  Dak. 
So5- 

No  Liability  on  Quantum  Meruit  for  Property 
Forchased  at  Price  Beyond  Constitutional  Limit. 

—  McGillivray  v.  Joint  School  Dist.  Xo.  i,  lu 
Wis.  354. 

Illegal  Indebtedness  Held  Not  Incurred  by  Mere 
Conditional  Acceptance  of  Bid,  —  Baltimore,  etc., 
R.  I'.i.  ;•.   People.    105    111.  4-'.?. 

Power  to  Contract  with  Architect  to  Prepare 
Drawings,  —  In  Fiske  :■.  School  Dist..  58  Neb. 
163,  it  was  held  that  a  board  of  education  has 
power  to  contract  with  an  architect  to  prepare 
general  drawings  and  specifications  for  a  school- 
house,  as  a  preliminary  to  determining  whether 
a  building,  and  if  so,  what  kind,  shall  be  con- 
structed, although,  for  want  of  funds  devoted  to 
building  purposes,  it  may  at  th.Tt  time  have  no 
power  to  erect  the  I)uildin[:. 

2.  Contract  for  Illegal  Amount  Held  Enforceable 
to  Extent  of  Amount  Allowed  by  Law.  —  Davis  v. 
Board  of  Education,  38  \V.  Va.  382 ;  McGilli- 
vray V.  Joint  School  Dist.  No.  i,  112  Wis.  354. 


48 


3.  Statutes  Requiring  Contract  to  Be  Let  to 
Lowest  Bidder,  —  Weilz  v.  Independent  Dist.,  79 
Iowa  423 :  State  z\  Board  of  Education,  42 
Ohio  St.  374.  See  also  Board  of  Education  v. 
Mills.  38  Ohio  St.  383  ;  Polhamus  v.  Board  of 
Education,  11  Ohio  Cir.  Dec.  366,  21  Ohio  Cir. 
Ct.  257;  McGreevey  v.  Board  of  Education,  :o 
Ohio  Cir.  Dec.  724,  20  Ohio  Cir.  Ct.  114;  Gil- 
bert V.  Board  of  Education,  11  Ohio  Cir.  Dec. 
552,  21  Ohio  Cir.  Ct.  416. 

4.  Wells  V.  School  Dist.,  7  Del.  Co.  Rep.  578; 
Coward  v.  Bayonne,  67  N.  J.  L.  470.  See  also 
Kraft  V.  Board  of  Education,  67  N.  J.  L.  512; 
Kemp  V.  School   Dist.,  84  Mo.  App.  680. 

5.  Chandler  v.  Board  of  Education,  104  Mich. 
292,  in  whicli  an  injunction  to  restrain  the  let- 
ting of  the  contract  to  persons  other  than  the 
lowest  bidder  was  denied. 

And  in  Anderson  v.  Public  Schools,  122  Mo. 
61,  it  was  held  that  no  right  of  action  for  dam- 
ages existed  under  such  circumstances,  in  the 
absence  of  any  showing  of  fraud  or  deceit, 
though  the  bid  of  the  lowest  bidder  was  rejected 
"  without  cause,  arbitrarily  and  capriciously, 
through   favoritism  and  l)i:is." 

6.  Ratification  of  Voidable  Contract. —  Bellows 
V.  District  Tp.,  70  Iowa  320  :  Sullivan  v.  School 
Dist.  No.  39,  39  Kan.  347 :  Fisher  v.  School 
Dist.  No.  17,  4  Cush.  (Mass.)  494;  Keyser  v. 
School  Dist.  No.  8,  35  N.  H.  477 ;  Chapin  v. 
School  Dist.  No.  2,  30  N.  H.  25;  Kimball 
V.  School  Dist.  No.  8,  28  Vt.  8.  See  also  Norris 
f.  School  Dist.  No.  i.  12  Me.  293,  28  Km.  Dec. 
182:  Davis  V.  School  Dist.  No.  20,  44  N.  H.  398. 

Refusal  of  Court  of  Equity  to  Return  Money 
Paid  under  Executed  Contract  for  Improvements 
Without  Authorization  of  Voters. —  Kagy  v.  In- 
dependent Dist.,  (Iowa  1902)  89  N.  W.  Rep. 
072. 

7.  Brown  v.  School  Dist.  No.  6,  64  N.  H.  303 ; 
Capital  Bank  v.  School  Dist.  No.  53,  i  N.  Dak. 

Volume  XXV. 


School  Buildings. 


SCHOOLS. 


Care  and  Control. 


expended  in  the  completion  of  a  schoolhouse  by  an  officer  of  a  school  district 
without  lawful  authority,  no  ratification  could  be  inferred  from  the  fact  that 
the  district  retained  and  enjoyed  the  benefit  of  the  expenditure,  because  it 
was  inseparable  from  its  property  and  it  had  no  option  to  reject  the 
improvement.* 

2.  Care  and  Control  —  a.  In  General.  —  Under  the  statutes  of  the  various 
states  it  is  generally  the  duty  and  right  of  the  district  board  of  trustees,  or 
directors,  or  other  designated  of^ccrs  to  take  care  of,  manage,  and  control  the 
schoolhouses  and  the  property  attached  or  appurtenant  thereto  situated  in  the 
district.*  As  an  incident  to  the  discharge  of  the  duty  of  caring  tor  and  keep- 
ing a  schoolhouse,  the  district  board  has  authority  to  bring  suit  for  an  injury 
to  the  schoolhouse.^ 

b.  Allowing  Use  of  School  Building  for  Other  than  School 
Purposes.  —  In  some  jurisdictions  the  rule  is  laid  down  that  school  di- 
rectors may  not  authorize  the  use  of  a  public  schoolhouse  for  other 
than    school   purposes,   such    as   religious    meetings,'*  or    political    or   social 


479.  See  also  Capital  Bank  v.  School  Dist.  No. 
8t.  6  Dak.  248;  School  Directors  v.  Fogleman, 
76  III.  189. 

Contract  for  Indebtedness  Beyond  Lawful 
Amount.  — •  While  a  contract  made  by  a  school 
lioard  for  building  materials,  though  for  an 
amount  in  excess  of  the  funds  on  hand  and 
therefore  unauthorized  by  statute,  may  be  rati- 
fied by  a  vote  of  the  district  authorizing  the  bor- 
rowing of  funds  for  that  purpose,  McGillivray 
V.  Joint  School  Dist.  No.  i,  112  Wis.  354,  yet 
the  rule  has  been  held  to  be  otherwise  where 
the  district  itself  was  without  power  to  enter 
into  the  contract  originally.  Capital  Bank  v. 
School  Dist.  No.  26,  (C.  C.  A.)  63  Fed.  Rep. 
938  ;  Capital  Bank  v.  School  Dist.,  i  N.  Dak.  479. 

1.  Young  V.  Board  of  p:ducation,  54  Minn. 
385,  40  Am.  St.  Rep.  340.  Compare  White 
River  School   Tp.  v.  Dorrell,  26   Ind.  App.  538. 

2.  Duty  of  Board  to  Care  for  School  Property.  — 
Alderman  v.  School  Directors.  91  111.  179:  Cul- 
ver V.  Smart,  i  Ind.  65  ;  Williams  v.  Peinny,  25 
Iowa  436  ;  School  Dist.  No.  35  ''•  Randolph,  57 
Neb.  546;  Swadley  v.  Haynes,  (Tenn.  Ch.  1897) 
41  S.  W.  Rep.  1066;  School  Dist.  No.  8  v. 
Arnold.  21    Wis.  657. 

Authority  to  Contract  for  Repairs.  —  Williams 
v.  Peinny,  25  Iowa  436  :  Conklin  v.  Scliool  Dist. 
No.  37,  22  Kan.  521  ;  Knowles  v.  School  Dist. 
No.  Ten,  63  Me.  261  ;  Staples  v.  French,  10  N. 
H.  •72;  Giles  V.  School  Dist.  No.  14.  .3i  N.  H. 
304:  Van  Dolsen  v.  Board  of  Education,  162 
N.  Y.  446. 

But  in  Davis  v.  School  Dist.  No.  2,  24  Me. 
349.  it  was  held  that  a  school  district  cannot  be 
considered  as  promising  to  pay  for  unauthorized 
repairs  uyton  its  schoolhouse  by  subsequent  use 
of  the  building. 

Liability  of  District  for  Repairs.  —  Blaisdell  v. 
School  Dist.  Xo.  2.  -2  Vt.  63. 

Lightning-  Rods  for  Schoolhouses. —  In  Monti- 
cello  Bank  ;■.  District  Tp..  51  Iowa  350,  it  was 
held  that  the  board  of  directors  of  a  district 
township  has  no  authority,  without  a  vote  of 
the  electors,  to  purchase  lightning  rods  for 
schoolhouses  and  give  the  obligations  of  the 
township  therefor.  See  also  Wolf  v.  Independ- 
ent  School   Dist..  SI   Iowa   4.^2. 

Insurance.  —  In  Indiana  it  has  been  held  that 
as  an  incident  to  the  power  to  care  for  school 
property,    the   trustees  may  invest  a  reasonable 

25  C.  of  L.— 4  49 


amount  in  insurance.  Clark  School  Tp.  v. 
Home  Ins.,  etc.,  Co.,  20   Ind.  App.  543. 

Under  statute  in  other  states  it  has  been  held 
that  the  power  to  insure  the  schoolhouse  and  its 
appendages  is  vested  in  the  district,  and  not  in 
the  trustees.  American  Ins.  Co.  f.  District  Tp., 
55  Iowa  606;  Holt's  Appeal,  5  R.  I.  603.  Com- 
pare Scott  V.  Independent  District,  91  Iowa  156. 
But  it  has  been  held  that  a  legal  vote  of  the  dis- 
trict to  raise  money  to  pay  the  premium  would 
amount  to  a  ratification  of  the  trustee's  act  in 
insuring.      Holt's  Appeal.  5  R.  I.  603. 

Discontinuance  of  Use  of  Building  for  Colored  in 
Favor  of  "White  Children.  —  It  has  been  held  that 
the  board  of  education  has  power  to  change  the 
use  of  school  buildings  so  as  to  have  white 
children  attend  school  in  a  building  at  one  time 
used  for  colored  children  who  were  removed  to 
another  building,  where  there  is  no  attempt 
to  discriminate  against  the  colored  children  and 
to  deprive  them  of  e(iual  facilities.  Roberts  v. 
Louisville  School  Board,  (Ky.  1894)  26  S.  W. 
Rep.   814. 

3.  Right  to  Sue  for  Injury  to  School  Property. 
—  School  Dist.  No.  8  f.  Arnold,  21  Wis.  657; 
Rapelye  v.  Van  Sickler.  i  Edm.  Sel.  Cas.  (N. 
Y.>    175. 

4.  TIse  of  Building  for  Religious  Purposes.  — 
Hysong  V.  Gallitzin  Borough  School  Dist.,  164 
Pa.  St.  629,  44  Am.  St.  Rep.  632 ;  Bender  v. 
Streabich,  182  Pa.  St.  251:  Spring  v.  School 
Directors.   31    Pittsb.  Leg.   T.  N.  S.   (Pa.)    194. 

Use  of  Building  for  Sunday  School.  —  Dorton  v. 
Hearn.  67   Mo.  301. 

Statute  Permitting  Directors  to  Authorize  Use 
of  Building  for  Religious  Meetings  Held  Constitu- 
tional. —  Nichols  V.  School  Directors.  93  111. 
61.   34    Am.    Rop.    160. 

Effect  of  Contribution  for  Erection  of  Building 
under  Agreement  for  Its  Partial  Use  as  Place  of 
"Worship. —  In  Boyd  v.  Mitchell,  69  Ark.  202,  it 
was  held,  under  an  Arkansas  statute,  that  the 
school  directors  were  authorized  to  forbid  the 
use  of  a  building  for  religious  meetings  where, 
as  a  result  of  such  use,  the  school  property  was 
damaged,  though  part  of  the  cost  of  construc- 
tion was  contributed  by  individuals  under  the 
agreement  that  the  building  was  to  be  used 
partly  as  a  schoolhouse  and  partly  as  a  place 
of  worship.  Compare  Swadley  v.  Haynes, 
(Tcnn.  Ch.  1897)  41  S.  W.  Rep.  1066. 
Volume  XXV. 


School  Buildings. 


SCHOOLS. 


Site. 


gatherings,*  or  even  public  meetings  or  lyceums  for  the  discussion  of  matters 
of  general  interest.*-*  Nor  can  the  majority  of  the  taxpayers  of  a  district, 
against  the  objection  of  even  one  taxpayer  of  the  district,  authorize  such  use 
by  formal  vote  or  otherwise.^  But  in  Indiana  it  has  been  held  that  township 
trustees  may  use  schoolhouses  for  holding  elections  and  for  all  other  township 
purposes.* 

Use  of  Building  for  Private  School.  —  It  has  been  held  that  the  lease  of  a  public 
schoolhouse  for  a  definite  term  for  use  as  a  private  school  was  unauthorized 
and  might  be  restrained  at  the  suit  of  a  resident  taxpayer  of  the  district.* 
On  the  other  hand,  it  has  been  held  that  a  use  of  school  property  tending 
to  promote  public  education,  and  v/hich  docs  not  interfere  with  the  regular 
schools,  may  be  permitted  by  school  trustees,  and  hence  that  it  is  within  their 
power  to  license  the  use  of  a  schoolhouse  out  of  school  hours  for  private 
instruction  in  vocal  music  to  the  scholars  and  others  of  the  district.® 

3.  Site  — rt:.  AUTIIORITV  TO  Select.  — The  choice  of  a  site  upon  which 
to  erect  a  school  building  is  left,  in  some  states,  to  the  determination  of  the 
inhabitants  of  the  district  themselves,  as  ascertained  by  their  votes  at  a  meet- 
ing held  for  the  purpose,''  while  in  other  states  the  trustees  or  other  officers 
specified  by  statute  are  empow^ered  to  make  the  selection.**     If  the  voters  of 


1.  Spencer  v.  Joint  School  Dist.  No.  6,  15 
Kan.  259,  22  Am.  Rep.  268. 

2.  Use  for  Public  Lyceums.  —  Bender  v.  Strca- 
bich.  182  Pa.  St.  25;. 

3.  Sj)encer  v.  Joint  School  Dist.  No.  6,  15 
Kan.   _'59,   22   .\w\.   Rep.   268. 

Use  for  Keligious  Meetings.  —  Scofield  v. 
Eighth  School  Dist.,  2^  Conn.  499.  Compare 
Davis  V.  Boget,  50  Iowa  1 1  ;  Townsend  v. 
Hagan,  35  Iowa  194. 

Use  for  Temperance  Meetings.  —  School  Dist. 
Xo.   S   ;■.   AnioM.   Ji    Wis.   (,5;. 

Vote  of  Inhabitants  of  District  Disallowing  Use 
of  Schoolhouse  for  Religious  Purposes  Held  Au- 
thorized by  Law. —  Rskhardt  :■.  Darby,  118 
Mich.   iM.,. 

Statute  Permitting  Other  Use  with  Consent  of 
Majority  of  Legal  Voters. —  In  Hurd  v.  Walters, 
48  Ind.  148,  it  was  held,  under  an  Indiana 
statute,  that,  upon  the  application  of  a  majority 
of  the  legal  voters  of  any  school  district  to  the 
proper  officers,  a  schoolhouse  might  be  used  for 
religious  purposes. 

4.  Use  for  Township  Purposes.  —  Harmony  Tp. 
V.  Osljorne,  9  Ind.  458. 

6,  Weir  v.  Day,  35  Ohio  St.  143.  Compare 
Chaplin  v.  Hill,  24  Vt.  528 ;  Russell  v.  Dodds,  zj 
Vt.  407. 

6.  Barnes's  Appeal.  6  R.  I.  591. 

7.  Selection  of  Site  by  Voters  —  Dakota.— 
Farmers,  etc.,  Xat.  Bank  z'.  School  Dist.  No.  53, 
6  Dak.  255. 

Illinois.  —  Merritt  v.  Farriss,  22  111.  303 ; 
School  Directors  v.  Wright,  43  111.  App.  270 ; 
Kiehna  v.  Mansker,  178  111.  15;  Ziesing  v.  Mat- 
thiessen,  79  III.  App.  560;  Shires  v.  Irwin,  87 
111.  App.  in;  School  Directors  v.  People,  90 
111.  App.  670. 

Kansas.  —  Moore  v.  State,  9  Kan.  App.  489 ; 
School  Dist.  No.  80  v.  Brown,  2  Kan.  App.  309. 

.Minnesota.  —  Webb  v.  School  Dist.  No^  3, 
83  Minn.  in. 

.Missouri.  —  Black  r.  Cornell,  30  Mo.  App. 
641  :   Seibert  f.  Botts.  57  Mo.  430. 

Neti'  Hampshire.  —  Leighton  v.  Ossipee 
School  Dist.,  66  N.  H.  548 ;  Newell  v.  Hancock, 
67   N.  H.  244. 


Nezv  York.  —  Benjamin  r.  Hull,  17  Wend. 
(N.  Y.)  437. 

Vermont.  —  Bean    v.    Prudential    Committee, 

38  Vt.  177. 

Power  of  Township  Board  to  Purchase  Site  for 
High  School  with  Authority  of  Voters.  —  Green- 
wood v.  Gmelich,  175  111.  526;  Township  Board 
of  Education  i'.   Carolan,  iSj  111.   119. 

Vote  to  Build  High  School  on  Site  Purchased  by 
Board  as  Ratification. —  Township  Board  of  Ed- 
ucation f.  Carolan,   182  111.  iig. 

Delegation  of  Authority  to  Trustees  Held  Un- 
authorized.—  Benjamin  v.  Hull,  17  Wend.  (N. 
V.)  437-     See  also  Tozier  v.  School  Dist.  No.  2, 

39  Me.  556. 

8.  Power  to  Select  Site  Vested  in  Officers  — 
Indiana.  —  Crist  v.  Brownsville  Tp.,  xo  Ind. 
461;  Koontz  V.  State,  44  Ind.  32:^;  Braden  v. 
McNutt,  114  Ind.  214;  Henricks  v.  State,  151 
Ind.  454. 

loiva.  —  Rodgers  v.  Independent  School  Dist., 
100  Iowa  317;  Carpenter  v.  Independent  Dist. 
^0-  5,  95  Iowa  300. 

Kentucky.  —  Davis  v.  Humiihrey,  (Ky.  1899) 
52  S.  W.  Rep.  946. 

New  Jersey.  —  State  v.  School  Dist.  No.  10, 
52  N.  J.  L.  104. 

Ohio.  —  State  v.  Lynch.  8  Ohio  St.  347 ; 
Hughes  V.  Board  of  Education.  13  Ohio  St.  336. 

Pennsylvania. — Witherop  v.  Titusville  School 
Board,  7  Pa.  Co.  Ct.  4=;!  :  Roth  v.  Marshall,  158 
Pa.  St.  272,  :i3  W.  N.  C.  (Pa.)  215. 

Rhode  Island.  —  Howland  -•.  School  Dist. 
No.  3,  15   R.  I.  184. 

Tennessee.  —  State  v.  Watson,  (Tenn.  Ch. 
1806)  3Q  S.  W.  Rep.  536. 

Power  Vested  in  Directors  of  City  Districts.  — 
State  f.  Jones.   155   -Mo.   570. 

Selection  of  Site  for  Building  as  Condition  Prece- 
dent to  Vote  for  Purchase.  —  School  Dist.  No.  80 
-'.  Brown.  2  Kan.  App.  309;  State  v.  School 
Dist.  Xo.  10.  52  X.  J.  L.  104.  Compare  How- 
land  :-.   School    Dist.    Xo.  3,    15    R.   I.   184. 

Suit  by  Taxpayer  to  Enjoin  Erection  upon  Desig- 
nated Site. —  It  has  been  held  that  a  private 
[)erson  cannot,  by  virtue  of  being  a  citizen  and 
taxpayer,  maintain  an  action  against  a  school 
50  Volume  XXV. 


School  Buildings. 


SCHOOLS. 


Site. 


the  district  are  unable  to  settle  upon  a  site,  as  where  several  sites  are  voted  on 
and  the  requisite  majority  is  not  given  to  any  one,  or  sometimes  where  the 
minority  are  aggrieved  by  the  selection,  a  location  may,  under  some  statutes, 
be  designated  by  a  specified  board  or  committee.'  So,  where  the  site  for  a 
schoolhouse  has  been  illegally  or  injudiciously  selected  by  designated  officers, 
provision  is  frequently  made  for  an  appeal  to  some  other  officer  or  board,  such 
as  the  superintendent  of  public  instruction  or  the  county  commissioners.' 

b.  Taking  Site  bv  Right  of  Eminent  Domain.  —  By  the  right  of  emi- 
nent domain  a  schoolhouse  site  may  be  taken  from  the  land  of  a  private  per- 
son without  his  consent  if  damages  therefor  are  paid  or  tendered  to  him.* 
Before  such  taking  can  be  valid  it  has  been  held  that  there  must  be  an  unquali- 
fied refusal  on  the  part  of  the  ov/ner  to  sell  the  land  at  a  reasonable  price.* 
Nor,  it  has  been  held,  can  this  power  be  exercised  without  notice  to  the 
owner  of  the  land.* 

c.  Change  of  Site.  —  Various  statutory  provisions  are  made  for  a  change 
of  a  schoolhouse  site  either  by  the  inhabitants  of  the  district  or  by  designated 
officers.® 


district  or  its  officers  lo  restrain  them  from 
erecting  or  attempting  to  erect  a  schoolhouse 
upon  a  certain  site,  where  such  action  on  the 
part  of  the  district  would  merely  afl'ect  the  in- 
terests of  the  public  in  general  and  not  those 
of  such  private  person  in  particular.  Nixon  v. 
School  Dist.  No.  92,  ^2  Kan.  510. 

Ratification  by  New  Board  of  Contract  for  Site 
with  Member  of  Old  Board. —  Trainer  v.  Wolf, 
140  Pa.  St.  279.  See  Pickett  v.  School  Dist. 
No.  I,  25  Wis.  551,  3  Am.  Rep.  105. 

1.  Tozier  v.  School  Dist.  No.  2,  39  Me.  556 ; 
Norton  v.  Perry,  65  Me.  183;  True  v.  Melvin, 
43  N.  H.  503  ;  Ayers  v.  School  Dist.,  67  N.  H. 
169;  Leighton  v.  Ossipee  School  Dist.,  66  N.  H. 
548;  Newell  v.  Hancock,  67  N.  H.  244;  Con- 
verse V.  Porter,  45   N.  H.  385. 

2.  Indiana.  —  State  v.  Custer,  11  Ind.  210; 
Braden  v.  McNutt,  114  Ind.  214;  Knight  v. 
Woods,  129  Ind.  loi. 

Iowa.  —  Newby  v.  Free,  72  Iowa  379;  Inde- 
pendent  Dist.  V.   Gookin,    72    Iowa  387. 

Nezv  Hampshire. —  Farnum's  Petition,  51  N. 
H.  376  :  Blake  v.  Orford,  64  N.  H.  299 ;  Adams 
V.  Slate,  65  N.  H.  188;  Newell  v.  Hancock,  67 
N.  H.  244. 

Rhode  Island.  —  Gardiner's  Appeal,  4  R.  I. 
602;   Cottrell's  Appeal,    10   R.  I.  615. 

3.  Taking  Site  by  Right  of  Eminent  Domain.  — 
Storer  ?•.  Hobbs.  52  Me.  i  ;4  ;  Cousens  v.  School 
Dist.  No.  4,  67  Me.  280 ;  Williams  v.  School 
Dist.  No.  6,  33  Vt.  271.  See  also  Hooper  v. 
Bridgewater,  102  Mass.  512.  And  see  the  title 
I'".Mixr.XT  DoM.Mx,  vol.   10,  p.   1087. 

Tender  Subsequent  to  Action  of  Trespass  No 
Justification.  —  Storer  f.  Holilis.  52   Me.    14.). 

Tender  of  Value  of  Land  to  Agent  in  Possession 
Sufficient,  Where  Owner  Is  Outside  of  Common- 
wealth.—  (lilibons  z\  Southwest  School  Dist., 
4  Allen   (Mass.)    508. 

Designation  of  Site  by  Town  or  School  District 
as  Prerequisite  to  Exercise  of  Right  of  Emi- 
nent Domain. —  Harris  v.  Marblehead,  10  Gray 
(Mass.)  40.  See  also  Eighth  School  Dist.  z\ 
Copeland,    2   Gray    (Mass.)    414. 

But  it  has  been  held  that  the  condemnation 
proceedings  cannot  be  quashed  because  the  dis- 
trict's vote  preceded  the  school  committee's 
location.  Howland  v.  School  Dist.  No.  3,  15 
R.  I.  184. 


Statute  Limiting  Quantity  of  Land  to  Be  Taken. 

—  Salisbury  v.   School   Dist.,    101    Iowa   556. 

Irregularity  of  Proceedings  Waived  by  Receiv- 
ing Damages  Awarded.  —  Eighth  School  Dist.  v. 
Coiteland,  2  Gray  (Mass.)  414.  See  also  Jordan 
V.  Haskell,  63  Me.   193. 

4.  See  Eighth  School  Dist.  v.  Copeland,  2 
Gray  (Mass.)  414;  True  v.  Melvin,  43  N.  H. 
503- 

5.  Eighth  School  Dist.  v.  Copeland,  2  Gray 
(Mass.)  414.  See  also  Cousens  v.  School  Dist. 
No.  4,  67   Me.  280. 

6.  Change  of  Site  —  Connecticut.  —  Colt  v. 
Roberts,    28    Conn.    330. 

Illinois.  —  Ruble  v.  School  Dist.  No.  5,  42 
111.   App.  483. 

Indiana.  —  Koontz  v.  State,  44  Ind.  323; 
Kessler  v.  State,  146  Ind.  221  ;  Carnahan  v. 
State,  155  Ind.  156;  State  v.  Wilson,  149  Ind. 
253- 

lozva.  —  Vance  v.   District  Tp.,  23   Iowa  408. 

Kansas.  —  Day  v.  Hulpieu,  8  Kan.  App.  742 ; 
Moore  v.  State,  9  Kan.  App.  489. 

Minnesota.  —  Stadtler  v.  School  Dist.  No.  40, 
61    Minn.   259. 

Missouri.  —  Buchanan  v.  School  Dist.,  25 
Mo.  App.  85. 

Montana.  —  State  v.  Marshall,    13    Mont.  136. 

Xebraska.  —  Wilber  f.  Woolley,  44  Neb.  739  ; 
McLain  v.  Maricle,  60  Neb.  353 ;  Zimmerman 
i\  State,  60   Neb.  633. 

Xezi<  Hampshire.  — State  v.  Bailey,  21  N.  H. 
185;   Holbrook  v.  Faulkner,  55   N.  H.  311. 

Xezi'  York.  —  Baker  v.  Freeman,  9  Wend.  (N. 
Y.)   36,  24  Am.  Dec.  117- 

Ohio.  —  Moss  v.  Board  of  Education,  58 
Ohio  St.  354. 

Pennsylvania. — Jackson  Tp.  School  Dist., 
II    York  Leg.   Rec.    (Pa.)    15. 

South  Carolina.  —  Sligh  v.  Bowers,  62  S. 
Car.  400. 

South  Dakota.  —  Graves  v.  Jasper  School 
Tn..    -    S.    Dnk.   41.1. 

Suit  by  Taxpayer  to  Enjoin  Removal. —  Parody 
V.  School  Dist.  No.  Eleven,  15  Neb.  514;  Mc- 
Lain Z'.  Maricle.  60  Neb.  353  ;  Graves  v.  Jasper 
Srhonl    Tp..    ^   S.    Dak.    414. 

Presumption  that  Change  by  Board  Was  Author- 
ized by  Vote   —   Burkhardt     7-.     Georgia     School 
Tp.,   9   S.   Dak.  315. 
51  Volume  XXV. 


Officers. 


SCHOOLS. 


Superintendenti. 


4.  Sale  of  Building.  —  Provision  is  sometimes  made  by  statute  for  the  sale 

of  schoollioiiscs  or  other  property  by  school  districts  when  necessary,  or  when 
sucli  pro[)crLy  is  no  lon<^er  neetled  for  the  use  of  the  district.* 

VIII.  Officers  —  1.  Superintendents  —  a.  State  Superintendent.  —  In 
many  states  a  state  superintendent  or  superintendent  of  public  instruction 
has  general  supervision  and  control  of  schools,  school  ofificials,  and  .school 
funds.*  Thus,  he  is  sometimes  vested  with  the  power  to  hear  and  determine 
appeals  from  school  directors,  trustees,  or  other  subordinate  ofificers.^  Where 
authority  has  been  given  to  a  state  superintendent  to  hear  and  determine  cer- 
tain matters  on  appeal,  his  determination  thereupon  has  been  held  to  have  the 
conclusive  quality  of  a  judgment  pronounced  in  a  legally  created  court  of 
limited  jurisdiction,  acting  within  the  bounds  of  its  authority."* 

/;.  Countv  Superintendent  —  (i)  Pozvers.  —  In  many  jurisdictions  the 
legislature  has  imposed  upon  county  superintendents  the  duty  of  general 
supervision  of  the  school  system  within  their  respective  counties.^  Since  the 
powers  and  duties  of  a  county  superintendent  of  public  instruction  are  derived 


1.  Sale  of  School  Buildings.  —  Whitmore  v. 
Hogan,  22  Me.  564  ;  School  Dist.  No.  6  z\  /Etna 
Ins.  Co.,  54  Me.  505  ;  State  v.  Jones,  155  Mo. 
570;  McCullough  V.  School  Directors,  11  Pa. 
St.  476.  See  also  Ackerman  v.  Vail,  4  Den. 
(N.  Y. )  297;  Samuels  v.  Poplar  Plains,  4  Bush 
(Ky.j    252. 

2.  Powers  of  State  Superintendent.  —  People 
V.  Inglis,  161  111.  256;  State  v.  State  Board  of 
Education,  18  Nev.  173;  Thompson  v.  Board  of 
Education,  57  N.  J.  L.  628;  Matter  of  Light, 
30  N.  Y.  App.  Div.  so;  Matter  of  Purdy,  56  N. 
Y.  App.  Div.  544  ;  People  v.  Skinner,  74  N.  Y. 
App.  Div.  58  ;  State  v.  Daniel,  52  S.  Car.  201  ; 
Moreland  z'.  Wynne,  (Tex.  Civ.  App.  1901)  62 
S.  \V.  Rep.  1093. 

Power  to  Remove  County  Superintendent.  — 
Field  V.  Com..  ^2  Pa.  St.  478.  See  also  People 
V.   Mays,    17    111.    App.    361. 

Power  to  Remove  School  Commissioner.  —  People 
V.  Draper,  63   Hun   (X.  Y.)    389- 

Approval  of  Compensation  Allowed  to  School-fund 
Commissioner,  —  Jones  t'.  Benton,  4  Greene 
'Iowa  )  40. 

Mandamus  to  Compel  Approval  of  Claim  of 
School  Commissioner.  —  Pickett  f.  Harrod,  86 
Ky.    485. 

Power  to  Contract  with  Attorney  to  Collect 
Claim  Due  to  School  Fund. —  State  r.  Sims,  76  Ind. 

Superintendent  Held  Not  Authorized  to  Decide 
Question  of  Contested  Election  of  School  Directors. 

—  Mershon  -■.    BaldridRC.   7   Watts    f  Pa. )    500. 
Hotel    Bills    Held   Not    Included    in    "Actual 

Traveling  Expenses  "  to  Ee  Allowed  to  Superintend- 
ent. —  State   T-.    La    Grave,    2^    Xev.   88. 

3.  Power  to  Hear  Appeals.  —  State  i\  Custer,  1 1 
Ind.  210;  State  v.  Board  of  Education,  45  N. 
J.  L.  100;  State  V.  Albertson,  54  N.  J.  L.  72; 
Easton  v.  Calendar,  11  Wend.  (N.  Y.)  90; 
Moreland  v.  Wynne.  (Tex.  Civ.  App.  1901)  62 
S.  W.  Rep.  1093:  Watkins  v.  Huff,  (Tex.  Civ. 
App.  1901)  63  S.  W.  Rep.  922.  affirmed  94  Tex. 
631:    State  f.   Whitlord.    54    Wis.    150. 

Power  to  Determine  Appeals  Not  to  Be  Delegated 
to  Assistant.  —  Tomt  School  Dist.  Xo.  7  :■. 
Wolfe,    12  Wis.  685. 

4.  Decision  of  Superintendent  Held  Conclusive. 

—  Atkinson  v.  Hutchinson,  68  Iowa  161  ;  Wood 
V.   Farmer,   69    Iowa   533;    Newby   v.    Free,    72 


Iowa  379;  Carpenter  v.  Independent  Dist.  No. 
5,  95  Iowa  300  ;  Thompson  v.  Board  of  Educa- 
tion, 57  N.  J.  L.  628;  People  v.  Collins,  (Supm. 
Ct.   Spec.  T.)    34   How.   Pr.    (N.  Y.)   336. 

But  sometimes  an  appeal  from  the  decision  of 
the  state  superintendent  to  the  state  board  of 
education  is  authorized.  Watkins  v.  Huflf, 
affirmed  94  Tex.  631  ;  Thompson  v.  Board  of 
Education,  57  N.  J.  L.  628. 

Under  the  Wisconsin  statute  it  has  been  held 
that  the  decision  of  a  state  superintendent  on 
appeal  may  be  reviewed  by  a  writ  of  certiorari, 
but  not  on  mere  questions  of  fact,  when  there 
is  any  contention  as  to  the  proofs.  State  v. 
Whitford,  54  Wis.  150:  State  v.  Graham,  60 
Wis.  395  ;   State  7'.  Thayer,   74  Wis.  48. 

Order  by  State  Superintendent  Removing  School 
Officers  Reviewable. — People  f.  Skinner,  159 
N.  Y.    162. 

Power  of  Superintendent  to  Correct  Decision.  — 
Desmond  z\   Independent   Dist.,    71    Iowa  23. 

5.  Powers  of  County  Superintendent.  —  Catlin 
v.  Christie,  15  Colo.  App.  291  ;  Smith  v.  Jeffer- 
son County,  10  Colo.  17.  See  also  School- 
Dist.  No.  I  V.  Jamison,  (Ky.  1891)  15  S.  W. 
Rep.  I  ;  Donnelly  t.  Duras,  1 1  Xeb.  283  ;  State 
('.    -Mewhinney,    67    Ind.    397. 

Power  to  Hear  Appeals  from  Inferior  Officers. — 
School  Dist.  Tp.  v.  Pratt,  17  Iowa  16;  Vance 
f.  District  Tp.,  23  Iowa  408 ;  Independent 
School  Dist.  V.  Independent  School  Dist., 
45  Iowa  391  ;  Perkins  v.  Independent  School 
Dist.,  56  Iowa  476 ;  Barnett  v.  Independent 
Dist.,  73  Iowa  134;  State  v.  Board  of  Educa- 
tion. 45  N.  J.  L.  100.  See  also  Fogle  v.  Gregg, 
26  Ind.  345  ;  Independent  Dist.  v.  Gookin,  72 
lov.-a  387. 

Power  to  Designate  Schoolhouse  for  Examina- 
tion of  Teachers.  —  State  v.  Board  of  Education, 
73    Minn.   375. 

Power  to  Advise  in  Case  of  Dispute  Over  Election 
of  Trustee.  —  State  -■.  .•Mbertson.  54  N.  J.  L.  72. 

Mandamus  to  Compel  Performance  of  Duty  by 
Superintendent.  —State  v.  Custer,  11  Ind.  210; 
Bailey  f.  P!\vart.  52  Iowa  11 1  ;  Xewby  v.  Free, 
72  Iowa  379:  Brinsoe  z'.  Cottingham.  11  Ky. 
L.    Rep.    720. 

Removal  of  Examiners  by  Superintendent  With- 
out Notice  or  Cause  Held  Authorized.  —  Johnson 
:•.  Ginn,   105   Ky.  654. 

Volume  XXV. 


Officers. 


SCHOOLS. 


Superintendents. 


entirely    from   statute,    he  can   exercise  only  such    powers   as  are   specially 
granted,  or  are  incidentally  necessary  to  carry  the  same  into  effect.' 

(2)  Election,  Tcrvi  of  Office,  and  Removal.  —  Various  statutory  provisions 
exist  in  the  different  states  prescribing  the  manner  of  election  or  appointment.* 
the  term  of  office,*  and  the  mode  and  causes  of  removal  *  of  county  superin- 
tendents. In  the  selection  and  employment  of  an  officer  of  this  character, 
however,  there  is  an  implied  condition  which  authorizes  his  dismissal  if  circum- 
stances arise  which  render  him  no  longer  able  or  fit  to  perform  the  duties  of 
his  position.* 

(3)  Compensation.  —  In  the  same  way  various  statutory  provisions  exist 
prescribing  the  compensation  to  be  received  by  county  superintendents,  or  the 
methods  by  which  it  is  to  be  computed  and  the  persons  by  whom  it  is  to  be 
fixed.6 


1.  Ratcliff  V.  Paris,  6  Neb.  539.  See  also 
Murray  v.  Clay  County,  81    111.  597. 

Nonliability  in  Tort  for  Mistaken  Performance 
of  Of&cial  Duty  Involving  Exercise  of  Discretion. 

—  Gridley   School   Dist.  f.   Stout,    134   Cal.   592. 

2.  Election  or  Appointment  of  County  Superin- 
tendent.—  Adams  v.  Thomas,  (Ky.  1890)  12 
S.  W.  Rep.  940;  Stuart  v.  School  Dist.  No.  i, 
30  Mich.  69;  Davis  v.  School  Dist.  No.  One, 
81  Mich.  214;  Wynn  v.  State,  67  Miss.  312; 
Ledford  v.  Greene,  125  N.  Car.  254;  State  v. 
MacKinnon,  5  Ohio  Dec.  558,  7  Ohio  N.  P. 
531;   Territory  v.   Stubblefield,   5   Okla.   310. 

Town  Superintendent.  —  In  Rhode  Island  any 
town  may  elect  a  superintendent  of  public 
schools,  and  if  it  fails  to  elect,  the  school  com- 
mittee shall  elect  one.  Verry  v.  Woonsocket 
School  Committee,  12  R.  I.  578. 

Provision  for  Election  of  Superintendent  for 
Several  Towns.  —  Freeman  v.  Bourne,  170  Mass. 
289;  Reed  z'.  School  Committee,  176  Mass.  473. 

Women  Held  Eligible.  —  State  v.  Gorton,  33 
Minn.   345;  Russell  z\  Guptill,   13   Wash.   360. 

Resident  of  Foreign  Birth  Held  Eligible.  — 
State  V.   Kilroy.   86   Ind.    118. 

Requirement  that  Superintendent  Be  Graduate 
of  Institution  of  Learning.  —  Territory  v.  Stub- 
blefield, 5   Okla.   310. 

Necessity  of  Filing  Bond.  —  See  Knox  County 
V.  Johnson,    124   Ind.    145,    19   Am.   .St.  Rep.  88. 

Vote  of  Trustee  for  Himself  as  Superintendent 
Held  Illegal. —  Hornung  7'.  State,  116  Ind.  458. 
See  also   State  v.   Edwards.    114   Ind.   581. 

Provision  for  Appointment  in  Case  of  Vacancy. 

—  People   z:    P.ahcock,    123   Cal.   307. 
Right  of  Board  to  Make  Contract  with  Superin- 
tendent Binding  on  Successors.  —  Gates  v.  School 
Dist.,  S3  .\Tk.  468.     See  also  Reubelt  v.  Nobles- 
ville.    106  Ind.  478. 

Right  of  Incumbent  to  Hold  Over  in  Case  of 
Election  Not  Held  on  Day  Provided  by  Law.  — 
State  7'.  Harrison,  67  Ind.  71.  See  also  Sackett 
t:   State.   74   Ind.   486. 

Right  of  Present  Incumbent  to  Hold  Over  in 
Case  of  Election  of  Ineligible  Person.  —  Howard 
7'.  Cornett.   ( Ky.    1886)    i    S.   W.   Rep.    i. 

Power  of  Board  to  Rescind  Election  at  Same 
Meeting. —  Reed  z'.  School  Committee,  176 
Mass.  473  :   Wood  z'.  Cutter,   138   Mass.   149. 

3.  Term  of  Office.  —  State  v.  Tallman,  24 
Wash.  426.  And  see  the  statutes  of  the  various 
states. 

Term  Construed  to  Be  for  One  Year  in  Absence 
of  Express  Stipulation  in  Contract.  —  Freeman  v. 
Bourne,    170   Mass.   289. 


Term  of  Office  Fixed  by  Constitution.  —  Burn- 
ham  V.  Sumner,  50  Miss.  517;  Pendleton  z'. 
Miller,  82  Va.  390.  See  also  State  v.  Thomp- 
son,  38   Mo.    192. 

4.  Removal  for  Immorality.  —  Hufford  v. 
Conover,    139    Ind.    151. 

Removal  for  Intoxication.  —  People  z\  Mays, 
117   111.   257,    17   111.  App.   361. 

Provision  for  Abolition  of  Office.  —  State  z: 
Crumbaugh,  26  Tex.  Civ.  App.  521.  See  also 
State  7'.   Tilford,    i    Nev.   240. 

5.  Superintendent  under  Indictment  for  Adultery. 
—  Freeman  Z'.  Bourne,   170   Mass.  289. 

6.  Compensation  of  County  Superintendents.  — 
California. —  San  Diego  7'.  Dauer,  97  Cal.  442; 
Peachy  v.  Redmond,  59  Cal.  326 ;  Peachy  v. 
Calaveras   County,    59    Cal.   548. 

Colorado.  —  Stevens  v.  Sedgwick  County,  5 
Colo.  App.  115;  El  Paso  County  v.  Finch,  8 
Colo.  App.  401  ;  Garfield  County  v.  White,  16 
Colo.  App.  516. 

Illinois.  —  Jimison  v.  Adams  County,  130  111. 
558. 

North  Dakota.  —  Wiles  v.  Mcintosh  County, 
10  N.  Dak.  594. 

South  Carolina.  —  Houser  v.  Orangeburg 
County,  59   S.  Car.  265. 

Tennessee.  —  Haile  v.  Young,  6  Lea  (Tenn.) 
SOI. 

Wisconsin.  —  Geraghty  v.  Ashland  County, 
81    Wis.   36. 

Provision  for  Compensation  of  Clerks.  —  State 
7'.    Heinrich.    (N.    Dak.    1902^    88    N.    W.    Rep. 

7  -  \- 
Superintendent  Held  Not  Entitled  to  Allowance 

for  Hire  of   Deputy. —  El  Paso  County  v.  Finch, 

8  ("olo.   App.    401. 
Allowance  for  Traveling  Expenses.  —  Houser  v. 

Orangeburg  County.   50   S.   Car.   265. 

Recovery  Back  by  County  of  Involuntary  Over- 
payments.—  W'iles  V.  Mcintosh  County,  10  N. 
Dak.    504. 

County  Judge  as  Ex  Officio  Superintendent  Held 
Entitled  to  Commissions.  —  Stevens  v.  Campbell, 
26  Tex.  Civ.  App.  213. 

District  Attorney  as  Ex  Officio  Superintendent 
Held  Not  Entitled  to  Extra  Compensation.  — 
State  7'.  Elko  County,   21    Nev.   19. 

No  Extra  Allowance  for  Making  Reports  to 
Bureau  of  Statistics.  —  Yeager  v.  Gibson  County, 
05    Ind.    427. 

Ri?ht  to  Amount  Fixed  by  Law  Not  Waived  by 
Receipt  of  Smaller  Sum.  —  Clarke    v.    Milwaukee 
County,  S3  Wis.  65.     See  also  O'Herrin  v.  Mil- 
waukee County,  67  Wis.   142. 
53  Volume  XXV. 


officers. 


SCHOOLS. 


Directors,  etc  ,  of  Schoo!  Jistrictfl. 


c.  City  Superintendent.  —  Provision  is  frequently  made  for  superin- 
tendents of  city  schools.* 

2.  Commissioners.  —  In  the  school  systems  of  some  of  the  states  provision 
is  made  for  state,  city,  and  county  commissioners  of  schools,  the  manner  of 
their  election  or  appointment,  their  qualifications,  term  of  office,  compen- 
sation, p  )wers,  and  duties  being  fixed  by  statute.* 

3  Boards  of  Education.  —  In  some  states  the  final  supervisory  power  over 
school  affairs  is  vested  in  a  state  board  of  education,  and  this  even  in  jurisdic- 
tions having  a  state  superintendent.*  So  in  many  states  the  statutes  contain 
provisions  for  the  appointment  and  organization  of  county,  city,  and  township 
boards,  which,  where  they  exist,  have  direct  control  of  the  schools  within 
their  respective  counties,  cities,  or  townships.* 

4.  Directors,  Trustees,  etc.,  of  School  Districts  —  a.  Election.  —  Various 
statutes  exist  in  the  different  states,  making  provision  for  the  manner,  time. 


School  Principal  Acting  as  Superintendent  with 
Consent  of  School  District  Entitled  to  Compensation. 
I), .VIS  :•.  bchuol  Dist.  Xo.  One,  8i  Midi. 
214. 

Itemized  Accoant  of  Services  Rendered  by  Super- 
intendent Held  Prima  Facie  Correct.  ■ —  Smith  v. 
.Jefferson  County,  10  Colo.  17;  Garfield  County 
V.  While,  )6  Colo.  Api).  516.  See  also  Farrell 
V.  Webster   County,   49    Iowa  245. 

Sworn  Statejaent  of  Services  Held  Not  Con- 
clusive. —  I'C'Ti   V.  Carroll   County,   51    Iowa  53. 

1.  iviinhroufji  v.  Barnett,  9,5  Tex.  301  ;  Peo- 
ple V.  Board  of  Education,  55  N.  Y.  App.  Div. 
295- 

Right  of  Action  to  P-ecover  Office  or  Emoluments. 

—  Kinibrough  v.  Barnett,  93  Tex.  301. 

2.  Statutes  Providing  for  County  School  Com- 
missioner.—  Pryse  v.  Hewitt,  (,Ky.  1886)  i  S. 
W.  Rep.  469;  Pickett  v.  Adams,  (Ky.  1891)  15 
S.  W.  Rep.  865;  State  v.  Meek,  129  Mo.  431; 
Pettigrew  :■.  Bell,  34  S.  Car.  104.  See  also 
Pickett    V.    Harrod,    86    Ky.    4S5. 

Provision  for  Coantv  Board  of  Commissioners.  — 
Ash  f.  McVey,  85  Md.  119.  See  also  School 
Com'rs  V.  Goldsborough,  <n>   Md.   103. 

Requirement  that  County  Commissioner  Be  Col- 
lege Graduate  or  Holder  of  Teacher's  Certificate. 

—  People  f.  Howlett,  94  Mich.  165.  Compare 
J)avis  V.  School-Dist.  Xo.  One.  81  Mich. 
214. 

Necessity  of  Holding  Certificate  at  Time  of 
Election. — State  v.  Meek,   129   Mo.   431. 

Power  of  State  Commissioner  to  Hear  Appeals. 

—  Gardiner's  Appeal,  4  R.  I.  602;  James's  Ap- 
peal. 5  R.  I.  602;  Cottrell's  .\.ppcal.  10  R.  I. 
61  s. 

Appeal  from  State  Commissioner  to  Judge  of 
Supreme  Court. —  Smith's  Appeal,  4  R.  I.  590. 

Provision  for  School  Commissioners  for  Cities  of 
Designated  Size. —  I-\atout  v.  Board  of  School 
Com'rs.  102  Ind.  222.  See  also  Tuley  v.  State, 
I     Ind.     500:     State    v.     State     Bank,     5     Ind. 

Vacation  of  Office  of  City  School  Commissioner 
by  Removal  from  Ward. —  People  v.  Board  of 
Educatinn.    i    Den.    (X.  Y. )   647. 

3.  Provisions  for  State  Boards  of  Education.  — 
State  f.  State  Board  of  Education,  iS  Xev.  173; 
Thompson  ;■.  Board  of  Education,  57  N.  J.  L. 
628:  Watkins  V.  Huflf,  (Tex.  Civ.  App.  1901) 
63  S.  W.  Rep.  922.  And  see  the  statutes  of 
the  various   states. 

In  Illinois  provision  was  at  one  time  made  for 


a   state   board    of  education.      Board   of   Educa- 
tion V.  Greenebaum,  39  111.  609. 

In  South  Ciirolina  the  state  board  of  educa- 
tion is  subject  to  the  supervision  of  the  state 
superintendent.     State  v.  Daniel,  52  S.  Car.  201. 

4.  City  Board  of  Education —  United  States.  — 
Board  of  Education  v.  National  L.  Ins.  Co., 
(C.  C.  A.)  94  Fed.  Rep.  324,  decided  under  a 
Dakota  statute. 

Illinois.  —  Adams  v.  Brenan,  177  111.  194,  69 
Am.  St.  Rep.  222 ;  Board  of  Education  v. 
Arnold,  112  111.  11  ;  Cravener  v.  Board  of  Edu- 
cation, 133  111.  145.  See  McGurn  v.  Board  of 
Education,    133    111.   122. 

Kentucky.  —  Adams  v.  Thomas,  12  S.  W.  Rep. 
940,  II  Ky.  L.  Rep.  701. 

Michigan.  —  People  v.  Board  of  Education, 
38  Mich.  95  :  People  v.  Board  of  Education.  39 
Mich.  63s  ;  Board  of  Education  v.  Runnels,  57 
Mich.  46 ;  Board  of  Education  v.  Detroit, 
So   Mich.   548. 

New  Jersey.  —  State  v.  Board  of  Education, 
54  N.  J.  L.  313;  Coward  v.  Bayonne,  67  N.  J. 
I  .  470. 

New  Mexico. —  Board  of  Education  v.  Bitting, 
9   N.  Mex.  588. 

South  Dakota.  —  In  re  Construction  of  School 
Law,  2  S.  Dak.  71  ;  Wilson  v.  Board  of  Educa- 
tion.  12  S.  Dak.  535. 

r/(;/i.  —  People  V.  Utah   Com'rs,  7   Utah   279. 

County  Boards  of  Education  or  County  School 
Boards. —  Board  of  Education  v.  Gumming,  103 
Ga.  641  ;  Blodgett  v.  Board  of  Education,  105 
Ga.  463  ;  Gadsden  County  v.  Green,  22  Fla.  102; 
State  V.  Daniel,  52  S.  Car.  201  ;  Stewart  v. 
'I'liornton,  75   \'a.   215. 

Statute  Providing  for  County  Board  of  School 
Directors. —  Dalby  v.  Hancock,  125  N.  Car.  325  ; 
Greene  v.  Owen,  125  N.  Car.  212;  Ledford  v. 
(Ireene.    125  N.  Car.  254. 

Township  Boards  of  Education.  —  Township 
Board  of  Education  v.  Cnrolan.  182  111.  119; 
Pickering  ?-.  De  Rocheaiont.  r,6  X.  H.  ^77; 
Kraft  V.  Board  of  Education.  67  N.  J.  L.  512; 
Pennsylvania  Lightning  Rod  Co.  v.  Board  of 
Educntinn,  2n  W.  Va.   360. 

Township  Trustees  as  School  Trustees  under 
Indiana  Statute.  —  Jackson  School  Tp.  v.  Had- 
ley.  50  Ind.  534;  State  v.  McDonald,  106  Ind. 
2:>,T,:  Middleton  v.  Greeson,  106  Ind.  18;  Kiefer 
V.  Troy  School  Tp.,  102  Ind.  279.  See  also 
HenrirWs  z\  State,  151  Ind.  454:  Timmons  v. 
Pine    School   Tp.,   22  Ind.   App.   93. 

Volume  XXV. 


Officers. 


SCHOOLS. 


Directors,  etc.,  of  School  Diatricta. 


and  place  of  electing  directors,  trustees,  or  committees  of  school  districts.* 

Qualification  of  Voters.  -  Those  who  vote  for  school  district  officers  must  have 
the  requisite  qualification.-,.- 

Appointment  to  Fill  Vacancy.  —  Various  statutes  provide  for  the  filling  by- 
appointment  of  vacancies  arising  from  specified  causes.^  A  vacancy  must 
occur  from  one  of  the  causes  named  in  the  statute  before  an  officer  can  be 
elected  or  appointed  to  fill  the  place  of  another,  *  and  it  must  be  filled  in  the 
manner  prescribed  by  statute.^  A  director  appointed  to  fill  a  vacanc}'  in  the 
board  will  hold  the  office  during  the  whole  of  the  unexpired  term.*' 

b.  Qualification.  —  Various  statutory  provisions  exist  making  it  neces- 
sary for  a  school  director  to  qualify  b)^  taking  and  subscribing  the  official  oath 
within  a  designated  time.' 


1.   See  the  statutes  of  the  various  states. 

Election  at  Meeting  Held  Outside  of  District 
Held  Immaterial.  —  Myer  v.  Crispell,  28  Barb. 
(X.  Y.)   54. 

Election  of  City  Trustees  by  Mayor  and  Council. 
—  State  V.  Ogan,  (Ind.  1902)  63  N.  E.  Rep. 
227. 

Provision  for  Election  of  Members  of  Board  in 
Cities  of  First  Class.  —  National  L.  Ins.  Co.  v. 
Board  of  Education,  (C.  C.  A.)  62  Fed.  Rep. 
778  (decided  under  Dakota  statute)  ;  Beatty  v. 
Walker,  i  Okla.  178.  See  Chambers  v.  Adair, 
(Ky.  1901)  62  S.  W.  Rep.  11 28. 

Provision  for  Election  of  Board  of  Education  in 
District  of  Specified  Size.  —  Ackerman  v.  Haenck, 
147  111.  514;   People  V.  Keechler,   194  111.  235. 

Provision  for  Separate  Ward  Election  of  Di- 
rectors. —  Com.  V.  Taylor,  159  Pa.  St.  451,  34 
\V.  N.  C.  (Pa.)  si;  Gormley  v.  Campbell,  159 
Pa.   St.   458,   34  W.   N.   C.    (Pa.)    53- 

Statute  Fixing  Time  of  Election. —  Swango  v. 
Rose,  105  Ky.  294:  Mattingly  v.  Vancleave, 
(Ky.   1901)  61   S.  W.  Rep.  257. 

Adjournment,  to  Another  Day  Held  Unauthor- 
ized. —  State  c'.  Cones,  15  Neb.  444.  Compare 
Kingsbury  z'.  Centre  School  Dist.,  12  Met. 
(Mass.)   99. 

Irregularity  in  Order  Fixing  Time  of  Election 
Immaterial  Where  Date  Is  Fixed  by  Law.  — 
Ackerman   z'.    Haenck,    147    HI.   514. 

Necessity  of  Proper  Warning.  —  Blaisdell  v. 
School   Dist.  No.  2,  72  Vt.  63. 

Mandamus  to  Compel  School  Board  to  Call 
Election.  —  State  z\  St.  Louis  School  Board,  131 
Mo.  505. 

Statute  Providing  Different  Methods  of  Election 
of  Trustees  for  Different  Classes  of  Districts  Held 
Constitutional.  —  Stater.  Long,  21  Mont.  26. 

Balloting.  —  People  v.  Gartland,  75  Mich. 
143- 

Majority  Vote  Held  Necessary  to  Elect.  — 
Cleveland  r.  Amy,  88   Mich.  374. 

Wilfully  Depositing  More  than  One  Vote  Held 
Indictable  Offense. —  State  z'.  Philbrick,  84  Me. 
562. 

Provision  for  Officers  to  Hold  Election.  — 
Deaver  v.  State,  27  Tex.  Civ.  App.  453. 

Kequirement  of  Keturn  of  Election  to  County 
Superintendent.  —  Deaver  z:  State,  27  Tex.  Civ. 
App.  453- 

Jurisdiction  of  County  Board  of  Contest  in  Case 
of  Contested  Election  — Hopkins  v.  Swift,  100 
Ky.   14. 

Provision  for  Determination  of  Rights  of  Candi- 
dates in  Case  of  Tie  Vote.  —  Com.  v.  Meanor,  167 
Pa.  St.  292. 


55 


Appointment  of  Trustees  for  District  Formed 
from  Parts  of  Two  Counties. —  State  v.  Sweeney, 
24  Nev.  350. 

Provision  for  Appointment  of  Inspector  to  In- 
quire into  Cases  of  Neglect  of  Duty  on  Part  of 
Directors.  —  In  re  School  Directors.  179  Pa.  St. 
60,  39  W.  N.  C.  (Pa.)  430;  In  re  Walker,  179 
Pa.  St.  24. 

Recognition  of  Prudential  Committee  by  Inhabi- 
tants as  Prima  Facie  Proof  of  Appointment.  — 
State  r.  Williams,  27  \'t.  755. 

For  Decisions  Holding  School  Trustees  to  Be 
Public  Officers,  see  the  title  Public  Officers, 
vol.  2i,  p.  325. 

2.  State  Z'.  Deshler,  25  N.  J.  L.   177. 
Women   Held   Eligible  as  Voters. —  Belles     v. 

Burr,  76  Mich.  i.  See  also  Trautmann  v.  Mc- 
Leod,  74  Minn.   1 10. 

Act  Allowing  Women  to  Vote  Held  Constitu- 
tional.   —  State  c'.  Cones.   15  Neb.  444. 

3.  Appointment  upon  Failure  of  Trustee  to 
Qualify.  —    Shelbourne     v.      Blatterman,      (Ky. 

1899)  49  S.  W.  Rep.  952;  Meadors  v.  Patrick, 
(Ky.  1900)  56  S.  W.  Rep.  652.  See  also  Min- 
nick  r.  State,  154  Ind.  379;  State  v.  Jaquis,  11 
Ohio    (ir.    Dec.   91. 

School  Board  Authorized  to  Fill  Vacancy  Arising 
from  Failure  of  Director  to  Attend  Meetings.  — ■ 
Keating  ;■.  .Ionian.   181    Pa.  St.  168. 

Power  of  County  Superintendent  to  Make  Appoint- 
ment in  Default  of  Election. —  Stewart  v.  Purvis, 
20   Tex.  Civ.  App.  647. 

4.  Richardson's  Appeal,  5  R.  I.  606  ;  Chandler 
r.  Bradish.  23  Vt.  416. 

Presumption  in  Favor  of  Vacancy  Contemplated 
by  Statute. —  Pierce   ■:■.    F.dington,    38    .-^rk.    150. 
Appointment  to  Fill  Vacancy  Not  Actually  Ex- 
isting, Void.  —  Mattingly    v.    Vancleave,     (Ky. 
1901  )  61  S.  W.  Rep.  257. 

5.  Pierce  v.  Edington,  38  Ark.   150. 

6.  Flaugher  v.  Yates,  (Ky.  1900)  56  S.  W. 
Rei).  411;  Meadors  v.  Patrick  (Ky.  1900)  56 
S.  W.  Rep.  652:  School  Dist.  No.  25  v.  Cowee, 
9  Neb.  53. 

7.  Qualification.  —  School  Dist.  v.  Bennett, 
52  Ark.  511:  Minnick  v.  State,  154  Ind.  379; 
Bennett  z:  District  Tp.,  53  Iowa  687 ;  Shel- 
bourne V.  Blatterman,  (Ky.  1899)  49  S.  W.  Rep. 
952;  Graham  z'.  Jackson.  ( Ky.  1902)  66  S.  W. 
Rep.  1009:  State  v.  Jaquis.  11  Ohio  Cir.  Dec. 
91  :  Childrey  v.  Rady.  77  Va.  518. 

Record  of  Oath  Held  Not  Essential.  —  Graham  v. 
Jackson.  66  S.  W.  Rep.  1000.  23  Ky.  L.  Rep.  2235. 

Oral  Evidence  of  Taking  of  Oath  Held  Sufficient 
upon  Failure  of  Notary  to  Affix  Seal. —  State    v. 
Van  Patten,   (Nev.  1901)   66  Pac.  Rep.  822. 
Volume  XXV. 


Officers. 


SCHOOLS. 


Directors,  etc.,  of  Sckooi  Districta. 


c.  Eligibility.  —  Under  statute  in  Missouri,  <inly  "  qualified  voters  "  are 
eligible  as  school  directors,*  and  hence  it  is  held  that  women,  not  being  eligi- 
ble voters,  cannot  become  school  directors. ~  In  other  states,  however,  women 
are  made  eligible  by  statute.-* 

d.  Term'  of  Office.  —  The  statutes  frequently  prescribe  the  term  for 
which  district  officers  shall  hold  office.'*  When  duly  elected  or  appointed  they 
hold  their  offices  until  their  successors  are  duly  elected  or  appointed  and 
qualified.* 

i\  Powers  and  Duties  — (i)  In  General.  —The  powers  and  duties  of 
school  directors  or  trustees  are  derived  exclusively  from  statute. **  Iheir 
powers  and  duties  being  derived  exclusively  from  the  statute,  they  can  exer- 
cise no  other  powers  than  those  expressly  granted,  or  such  as  result  by  fair 
implication  from  the  powers  granted.'  On  the  other  hand,  they  cannot  by 
contract  divest  themselves  of  powers  which  have  been  conferred  upon  them 
for  a  public  purpose.*^ 

(2)  Necessity  of  Corporate  Action.  —  The  individuals  composing  the  board 
have  no  power,  as  a  general  rule,  to  act  as  individuals  so  as  to  bind  the  dis- 
trict, but  may  act  only  when  convened  as  a  board  in  their  official  capacity, 
xwA  any  contract  made  or  act  done  by  them  when  not  thus  convened,  unless 
il  is  afterwards  fully  approved  and  confirmed  when  legally  in  session,  is  invalid.® 

Majority  of  Votes  Controlling.  —  But  where  there  is  a  lawful  meeting  it  is  gen- 


Failure  to  Indorse  Oath  on  Certificate  of  Election 
Held  Immaterial.— State  v.  Van  Patten,  (Nev. 
:ooi  )    66    i'ac.   Hep.  8_'_'. 

Necessity  of  Filing  Acceptance  of  Office  by  Clerk 
of  District. —  State  r.  Stratte,  8.5  Minn.   194. 

1.  Eligibility  in  General.  —  State  z-.  McSpaden, 
137  Mo.  6j8.  See  State  v.  Rebenack,  135  Mo. 
340:   State  -'.  Macklin,  41    Mo.  App.  335. 

2.  Women  Held  Ineligible. — State  v.  Mc- 
Spaden.   13;  Mo.  6j8. 

3.  Women  Held  Eligible.  —  Huff  v.  Cook,  44 
Iowa  639;  State  y.  Cones,  15  Xeb.  444.  In 
Miissacluisetts.  under  the  constitution,  a  wo- 
:ir  n  may  be  a  member  of  a  school  committee. 
Opinion   of  Justices.    115   Mass.  602. 

4.  Term  of  Office  in  General.  —  State  v.  St. 
Loui^  School  Board,  131  Mo.  505;  State  v. 
P;  I  kins.    I  3   Wis.  411. 

Provision  for  Determining  Length  of  Terms  of 
Trustees  by  Drawing  Lots  Between  Them.  — 
I'.r'.v,  n   :■.   I  )akcs.   16   Tex.  Civ.   .\pp.  30. 

Term  of  Office  Limited  by  Constitutional  Provi- 
sion. —  Kowan  V.  King,  (Tex.  Civ.  App.  1900) 
56  S.  W.  Rep.  103. 

6.  Holding  Over.  —  Chandler  v.  Bradish,  23 
Vt.  An>\  Walker  r.  Miner,  32  Vt.  769;  Stewart 
v.  State,  4  Inrl.  396;  Atty.-Gen.  v.  Burnham,  61 
X.  H.  501:  Fr.-inklin  Ave.  German  Sav.  Inst.  v. 
fV-^Tii  of  Education.  75  Mo.  408. 

Failure  to  Elert  a  Committee  at  an  Annual 
Meeting,  it  has  been  held,  creates  no  vacancy, 
1  vi!  leaves  the  committee  of  the  previous  year 
in  office.  Rowell  v.  School  Dist.  No.  19,  59  Vt. 
658.  Especially  is  this  true  where  an  express 
provision  to  this  effect  is  contained  in  the  city 
charter  with  respect  to  the  schools  therein. 
S"M"th  V.   People.    i5;a  111.  58. 

Continuance  of  Term  of  Predecessor  upon  Fail- 
ure of  Director  to  Qualify. —  School  Dist.  v.  Ben- 
nett. ; :  .\rk.  .mi. 

Holding  Over  on  Failure  of  New  Trustee  to 
Beturn  Certificate  of  Oath  Held  Not  Authorized 
Without  Superintendent's  Consent.  —  Dotson  v. 
Stratton,  (,Ky.  1896J   ^7  S.  W.  Rep.  147. 


56 


Statute  Providing  for  Holding  Over  by  Person 
Appointed  to  Fill  Vacancy.— Swango    v.    Rose, 

10s    Ky.   jg4. 

6.  Powers  of  School  Trustees  Derived  from  Statute. 

—  Adams  ;'.  State,  82  ill.  132;   Wells  v.  People, 

71  111.  S3-:  School  Directors  v.  Fogleman,  76 
111.  189;  Peers  v.  Board  of  Education,  72  111. 
508. 

Power  to  Take  Property  by  Bequest.  —  The 
boards  of  trustees  for  common  schools  in  the 
city  of  Xew  York  in  the  different  wards  are 
held  to  be  corporations  to  the  extent  of  holding 
property  transferred  to  them  for  school  pur- 
poses, and  are  empowered  to  take  property  by 
bequest  for  the  benefit  of  their  schools.  Betts 
V.  Betts,  (Supm.  Ct.  Spec.  T.)  4  Abb.  N.  Cas. 
(N.  Y.)  317. 

7.  Spring  v.  Wright,  63  111.  90 ;  Wells  v. 
People,  71  111.  532;  Peers  t-.  Board  of  Education, 

72  111.  508;  School  Directors  v.  Fogleman,  76 
111.  189:  Seeger  v.  Mueller,  133  111.  86;  Union 
School  Tp.  V.  Crawfordsville  First  Xat.  Bank, 
102  Ind.  473;  Jay  v.  School  Dist.  Xo.  i,  24 
Mont.  219:  Wright  v.  Rosenbloom,  52  N.  Y. 
App.  Div.  579;  Honaker  v.  Board  of  Education, 
42  W.  \'a.  170,  57  Am.  St.  Rei).  847. 

8.  Conlcy  ;•.  School   Directors.  ^2  Pa.  St.  194. 

9.  Necessity   of  Corporate   Action  —  Arkansas. 

—  School  Dist.  v.  Bennett,  52  Ark.  511  ;  Burns 
v.  Thompson,  64  Ark.  489;  Springfield  Furniture 
Co.  f.  School  Dist.  Xo.  4,  67  Ark.  236;  School 
Dist.  X'o.  49  -'.  Adams,  69  Ark.  159. 

Illinois. —  People  v.  Smith,  149  111.  549;  Law- 
rence V.  Traner,  136  111.  474.  Compare  School 
Trustees  f.  Allen,  21   111.   120. 

Indiana.  —  Fayette  County  v.  Chitwood,  8 
Ind.  504  ;  Milford  v.  Powner.  126  Ind.  528. 

lozca.  —  Herrington  ■:■.  District  Tp.,  47  Iowa 
II  ;  Mills  V.  Collins,  67  Iowa  164;  W^eir  Furnace 
Co.  V.  Independent  School  Dist.,  99  Iowa 
IIS- 

Kansas.  —  Aikman  v.  School  Dist.  No.  16,  27 
Kan.  129;  Kane  v.  School  Dist.  No.  112,  5  Kaa. 
App.  260. 

Volume  XXV. 


Officers. 


SCHOOLS. 


Directors,  etc.,  of  School  Districts, 


erally  held  that  a  majority  of  the  board  has  povver  to  act,  and  the  fact  that  a 
minority  of  the  board  opposes  the  action  will  not  affect  the  validity  of  the 
act.*  And,  as  a  general  rule,  it  is  not  required  that  all  the  members  of  I  he 
board  be  present,  but  a  majority  or  a  designated  number  may  act,  provided 
all  are  notified  and  have  an  opportunity  to  be  present.*  But  the  action  of  a 
majority  of  a  school  board  will  not  bind  the  district  in  general  without  notice 
to  or  participation  therein  of  the  other  members.*  And  a  contract  for  the 
employment  of  a  teacher  made  at  a  special  meeting  at  which  all  the  members 


School 


(Tenn. 
Stuart, 


Kentucky.  —  Lewis  v.  Hayden,  (Ky.  1897) 
38  S.  W.  Rep.  1054. 

Michigan.  —  Hazen  v.  Lerche,  47  Mich.  626  ; 
Cowley  V.  School  Dist.  No.  3,  (Mich.  1902)  90 
N.  W.  Rep.  680. 

Missouri.  —  Kane  v.  School  Dist.,  48  Mo.  App. 
408. 

Nebraska.  —  People  v.  Peters,  4  Neb.  254 ; 
State  V.  School  Dist.,  22  Neb.  48;  Markey  v. 
School  Dist.  No.  18,  58  Neb.  479. 

Ohio.  —  Ohio  v.  Treasurer,  22  Ohio  St.  144; 
McCortle  v.  Bates,  29  Ohio  St.  419,  2Z  Am. 
Rep.  758. 

Pennsylvania.  —  Roland  v.  Reading 
Dist.,  161  Pa.  St.  102. 

Tennessee.  —  Mitchell  v.  Williams, 
Ch.  1897)  46  S.  W.  Rep.  325  ;  Fine  v. 
(Tenn.  Ch.  1898)  48  S.  W.  Rep.  371- 

West  Virginia.  —  Pennsylvania  Lightning  Rod 
Co.  V.  Board  of  Education,  20  W.  Va.  360 ; 
Wintz  V.  Board  of  Education,  28  W.  Va.  227  ; 
Casto  V.  Board  of  Education,  38  W.  Va.  707. 

Wisconsin.  —  Doyle  v.  Gill,  59  Wis.  518;  Mc- 
Nolty  7:  School  Directors,  102  Wis.  261  ;  Man- 
they  v.  School  Dist.  No.  6,  106  Wis.  340. 

Thus  an  Agreement  Between  the  Trustees  by 
which  they  parcel  out  among  themselves  the 
control  of  the  schools  in  the  district  is  illegal 
and  void.  Mitchell  v.  Williams,  (Tenn.  Ch. 
1897)   46  S.  W.  Rep.  325- 

Contract  of  President  of  Board  Held  Invalid.  — 
Roland  :■.  Reading  School  Dist.,  161   Pa.  St.  102. 

Unauthorized  Representation  of  President  of 
Board.  —  Independent  School  Dist.  v.  Hubbard, 
1 10  Iowa  58. 

Authorization  by  Board  Presumed  from  Signing 
by  Officers. —  Dolan  -•.  Joint  School  Dist.  No.  13, 
80  Wis.  155. 

Different  Rule  Applied  in  Some  Jurisdictions  to 
Contracts  for  Employment  of  Teachers.  —  School 
Dist.  No.  25  ?•.  Stone,  i;  Colo.  App.  211; 
Athearn  7'.  Independent  Dist.,  3;^  Iowa  105; 
Hull  V.  Independent  School  Dist.,  82  Iowa 
686:  Russell  f.  State,  13  Neb.  68;  Montgomery 
V.  State.  35  Neb.  655. 

Ratification  of  Contract  with  Teacher.  —  In 
Milford  %'.  Powner,  126  Ind.  528,  it  was  held 
that  where  one  of  the  school  trustees  signed  a 
contract  of  employment  witli  a  teacher,  and  at  a 
called  meeting  the  contract  was  adopted  by  the 
board  and  signed  by  another  member,  the  con- 
tract was  ratified  and  valid. 

And  it  has  been  held  that  where  a  contract 
with  a  teacher  is  signed  by  the  officers  con- 
templated by  statute,  and  is  valid  on  its  face, 
the  teacher  may  rely  upon  the  appearance  of  au- 
thority and  assume,  at  least  after  his  services 
have  been  received  without  complaint  and  part 
of  his  salary  has  been  paid,  that  the  board  had 
met  and  taken  corporate  action  authorizing  the 
contract,  a  ratification   by   the  board  in   formal 


meeting  being  held  to  be  unnecessarj'.  School 
Dist.  No.  25  V.  Stone,  14  Colo.  App.  211  ;  Crane 
V.  School  Dist.  No.  Six,  61  Mich.  299.  See  also 
Holloway  -•.  School  Dist.  No.  Nine,  62  Mich. 
153;  Robinson  c'.  School  Directors.  96  III.  App. 
604;  Jones  V.  School  Dist.  No.  3,  no  Mich.  363. 

Use  by  District  of  Furniture  or  Supplies  as  Rati- 
fication of  Informal  Contract. —  Springfield  Furni- 
ture Co.  z\  School  Dist.  No.  4,  67  Ark.  236 ; 
Johnson  z'.  School  Corp.,  (Iowa  1902)  90  N.  W. 
Rep.  713;  Union  School  Furniture  Co.  Z'.  School 
Dist.  No.  60,  so  Kan.  727  :  Andrews  v.  School 
Dist.  No.  4,  37  Minn.  96.  Compare  Currie  v. 
School  Dist.  No.  26,  35  Minn.  163;  Kane  v. 
School  Dist,  48  Mo.  App.  408  ;  Morrison  First 
Nat.  Bank  v.  Felknor,  (Tenn.  Ch.  1898)  48  S. 
W.  Rep.  392  :  Kane  z\  School  Dist.,  52  Wis.  502. 

Informal  Ratification  by  Board  of  Contract  for 
Supplies.  — Jones  ■:■.  School  Dist.  No.  3,  no 
Mich.  363. 

Agreement  in  Advance  for  Ratification  at  Next 
Meeting  Held  Invalid. —  McCortle  v.  Bates,  29 
Ohio  St.  410.  -'3  Am.  Rep.  758. 

1.  Majority  Vote  Held  Controlling.  —  School 
Dist.  No.  25  z\  Stone,  11  Colo.  -A.pp.  211  ;  Scho- 
field  V.  Watkins,  22  111.  66 :  Crane  v.  School 
Dist.  No.  Six.  61  Mich.  304;  Pearsall  z\  Woolls, 
(Tex.  Civ.   -App.  iSijO   50  S.  W.  Rep.  950. 

Fact  that  One  Instead  of  Three  Trustees  Em- 
ploying Teacher  W-s  Not  Legally  Elected  Held 
Immaterial.  —  Shelbourne  z\  Blatterman,  (Ky. 
1899)  4M  S.  W.  Rep.  952. 

Refusal  of  Board  to  Declare  Election. —  It  has 
been  held  that,  notwithstanding  the  fact  that  at 
the  meeting  of  the  board  of  trustees  a  majority 
of  the  votes  v.ere  cast  for  the  employment  of  a 
certain  person  as  teacher,  no  employment  was 
in  fact  contracted  for,  wliere  the  board  immedi- 
ately after  the  balloting  refused  to  declare  such 
person  elected,  and  mandamus  would  not  lie  to 
compel  tlie  board  to  make  such  declaration. 
Malloy  ?•.   Board  of  Fducation,    inj  Cal.  642. 

Election  of  Teacher  Invalidated  by  Failure  to 
Call  Roll  and  Enter  Ayes  and  Noes.  —  Board  of 
Education  7'.  Best.  5?  Ohio  St.  138.  See  also 
Pierce  v.  Board  of  Education,  8  Ohio  Dec.  648, 
I  Ohio  N.  P.  286. 

2.  Presence  of  Entire  Board  Urnecessary.  — 
^^'ilson  V.  Watersville  School  Dist.,  46  Conn. 
400:  Brown  r.  School  Dist.  No.  41,  i  Kan.  .^.pp. 
530;  .Mkman  z\  School  Dist.  No.  16,  27  Kan. 
129;  Kingsbury  v.  Centre  School  Dist..  12  Met. 
(Mass.)  00.  See  also  Genesee  Tp.  Independent 
School  Dist.  z\  McDonald,  98  Pa.  St.  444; 
Short-Conrad   Co.  v.  School   Dist.,  94  Wis.  535- 

3.  Necessity  of  Notice.  —  School  Dist.  v.  Ben- 
nett. 52  .Xrk.  511  ;  Currie  v.  School  Dist.  No.  26, 
35  Minn.  163;  People  v.  Peters.  4  Neb.  254; 
Beck  V.  Kerr.  75  N.  Y.  App.  Div.  173  ;  Wintz  v. 
Board  of  Education,  28  W.  Va.  227;  Casto  v. 
Board    of    Education,    38    W.    Va.    707;    Doyle 

7  Volume  XXV. 


Officers. 


SCHOOLS. 


Directors,  etc.,  of  School  Districts. 


of  the  board  were  present  has  been  held  invalid  where  one  of  the  members 
who  had  received  no  notice  refused  to  act.* 

(3)  Care  and  Management  of  Schools.  --  Under  statute  in  most  of  the  states 
the  care  and  management  of  the  public  schools  are  primarily  vested  in  the 
directors,  trustees,  or  similar  officers  of  the  different  districts.- 

(4)  Pozuer  to  Contract  —  (a)  In  General.  —  Contracts  made  by  the  directors 
and  trustees  are  binding  upon  the  district  when  made  within  their  authoritv.'* 


V.  Gill,  59  Wis.  518.  Compare  School  Trustees 
V.  Allen,  21  111.  120;  Montgomery  v.  State,  35 
Neb.  655. 

In  Nc'iC  York  it  was  at  one  time  held  that  two 
trustees  of  a  school  district  could  not  act  in  the 
performance  of  their  duties,  except  when  all 
three  were  present,  whether  the  third  one  re- 
fused to  act  or  not.  Whitford  v.  Scott,  (Supm. 
Ct.  Gen.  T.)  14  How.  Pr.  (N.  Y.)  302;  Lee  v. 
Parry,  4  Den.  (N.  Y.)  125  ;  Keeler  z'.  Frost,  22 
Barb.  (N.  Y.)  400. 

Notice  Required  to  Be  in  Writing.  —  Burns  v. 
Thompson,  64  Ark.  489. 

Rule  Requiring  Notice  Applied  to  Special  as 
Distinguished  from  Regular  Meeting.  —  School 
Dist.  7'.  Bennett.  52  Ark.  311  :  Burns  v.  Thomp- 
son, 64  Ark.  489;  School  Dist.  No.  49  v.  Adams, 
69  Ark.  159.  See  also  Splaine  v.  School  Dist. 
No.  122,  20  Wash.  "4. 

Agreement  of  Directors.  —  It  has  been  held 
that  if  there  was  an  agreement  by  all  of  the  di- 
rectors to  meet,  no  formal  notice  of  the  meet- 
ing is  necessary.  Olney  School  Dist.  v.  Christy, 
81  111.  App.  ,504. 

Want  of  Formal  Call  or  Notice  Held  Immaterial 
When  All  Are  Present. —  Hanna  z'.  Wright,  116 
Iowa  275  ;  L.-iwrence  i'.  Traner,    136   111.  474. 

Bona  Fide  Effort  to  Notify  Held  Sufficient.— 
School  Directors  f.  Sprague.  78   111.  App.  390. 

1.  School  Dist.  Xo.  49  '■•  -Vdams,  69  Ark.  159. 

2.  Care  and  Management  of  Schools. —  Chase  v. 
Stephenson,  71  111.  383:  Rulison  v.  Post,  79  111. 
567;  Board  of  Education  v.  Pulse,  10  Ohio 
Dec.  I".  See  also  Weatherly  v.  Chattanooga, 
(Tenn.  Ch.  1898)  48  S.  W.  Rep.  136. 

Power  to  Adopt  Kindergarten  System.  —  Sin- 
nott  i\  Colombet.  107  Cal.   187. 

Power  to  Close  Schools.  —  Davis  v.  Menden- 
hall,  150  Ind.  205  ;  Dublin  Tp.  School  Board,  14 
Pa.  Co.  Ct.  464. 

3.  Power  of  Board  to  Contract.  —  Adams  v. 
State,  82  111.  132;  Independent  Dist.  v.  Reich- 
ard.  50  Iowa  98  ;  Gibson  v.  School  Dist.  No.  5, 
36  Mich.  404  ;  Knabe  v.  Board  of  Education,  67 
Mich.  262. 

Employment  of  Engineer  to  Take  Charge  of 
Heating  Apparatus.  —  People  v.  Board  of  Edu- 
cation. 84  Hun   (X.  Y.)  417. 

Employment  of  Janitor.  —  Taylor  v.  School 
Dist.  Xo.  3.  60  Mo.  App.  3-2,  I  Mo.  App.  Rep. 
98,  in  which  it  was  held  that  the  employment  of 
a  janitor  by  a  teacher  upon  the  refusal  of  the 
board  to  do  so  was  unauthorized. 

Employment  of  Attorney.  —  Under  statute  in 
lozca  authorizing  school  directors  to  employ 
counsel  in  suits  "  instituted  by  or  against  any 
of  the  school  officers,"  it  has  been  held  that  di- 
rectors who  are  honest  in  the  performance  of 
their  duties,  even  though  mistaken  as  to  their 
powers,  and  so  act  illegally,  have  power  to  em- 
ploy counsel  at  the  expense  of  the  district  in  a 
case   instituted   against   them   as    such   officers; 


58 


while  directors  who  knowingly  act  illegally  or 
corruptly  or  knowingly  disregard  their  duty, 
whereby  an  injury  results  to  the  district,  arc  de- 
prived of  the  benefit  of  this  statutory  provision. 
Scott  v.  Independent  Dist.,  91   Iowa   156. 

Right  to  Buy  In  Land  upon  Which  Board  Holds 
Mortgage.  — School  Trustees  r.  .'\rnold,  58  111. 
App.  103.  See  also  Du  Val  v.  School  Dist.,  67 
Ark.  67. 

Mortgaging  Land  of  District,  —  It  has  been 
held  that  the  trustees  have  no  power  to  execute 
a  valid  mortgage  on  the  land  of  the  district, 
such  power  being  vested  in  the  inhabitants  of 
the  district.  Sanborn  z'.  School  Dist.  No.  to, 
12   Minn.   17. 

Issuing  Promissory  Notes  or  Accepting  Bills  of 
Exchange.  —  School  trustees  cannot  make  prom- 
issory notes  or  acceptances  of  orders  or  bills  of 
exchange  that  will  be  binding  on  the  district, 
in  the  absence  of  some  statutory  authorization. 
Peers  v.  Board  of  Education,  72  111.  508  ;  Union 
School  Tp.  v.  Crawfordsville  First  Nat.  Bank, 
102  Ind.  464.  See  also  Robbins  z'.  School  Dist. 
No.  I,  10  Minn.  340.  And  the  authority  to  issue 
bonds  does  not  include  the  power  to  make  prom- 
issory notes.  School  Directors  v.  Sippy.  54  111. 
287. 

So  a  note,  to  be  binding  on  the  district,  must 
appear  to  have  been  given  for  a  debt  which  the 
trustees  were  authorized  to  contract.  School 
Directors  v.  Miller,  54  111.  338  ;  School  Dist.  No. 
7  z'.  Thompson,  5  Minn.  280.  See  also  Folsom 
f.  School  Directors,  91  111.  402;  Brewster  v. 
Colwell,   13  Wend.  (N.  Y.)  28. 

Where  a  trustee  borrows  money  and  executes 
notes  therefor  in  the  name  of  the  school  corpo- 
ration, the  corporation,  it  has  been  held,  will  be 
liable  if  the  money  is  actually  used  for  the  pay- 
ment of  legitimate  claims  against  it.  Union 
School  Tp.  z'.  Crawfordsville  First  Nat.  Bank, 
102  Ind.  464.  See  Boyd  i'.  Black  School  Tp., 
123  Ind.  I  ;  Bicknell  -'.  Widner  School  Tp..  73 
Ind.  501  ;  Wallis  v.  Johnson  School  Tp..  75  Ind. 
368 :  Crawfordsville  First  Nat.  Bank  ?■.  Union 
School  Tp..  75  Ind.  361  :  Reeve  School  Tp.  v. 
Dodson,  98  Ind.  497  :  Miller  z\  White  River 
School  Tp.,  loi   Ind.  503. 

Want  of  Authority  to  Make  Promise  So  as  to 
Take  Debt  Out  of  Statute  of  Limitations.  —  Srn- 
JH.rn  f.  Sch..oI  Di^t.  Xo.  m,  u  Minn.  17. 

Power  of  Board  to  Make  Contracts  After  Election 
of  Successors  and  Before  Qualification.  —  Dubuque 
Female  College  t'.  District  Tp..  13  Iowa  555. 
See  Reubelt  t\  Xoblesville,  106  Ind.  478. 

Power  of  Subdirectors,  —  .'\thearn  v.  Inde- 
pendent Dist..  3,"  Iowa  105.  See  also  District 
Tp.  r'.  Meyers.  83   Iowa  688. 

Contract  Through  Agents.  —  Where  two  per- 
sons are  authorized  by  a  board  of  school  direct- 
ors of  a  district  to  make  a  contract  on  their 
Ijehalf.  a  contract  signed  and  sealed  by  one  only 
is  not  admissible  in  evidence,  in  an  action  of 
Volume  XXV. 


OflBcera. 


SCHOOLS. 


Directors,  etc.,  of  School  Districts. 


All  persons  dealing  with  school  officers  are  presumed  to  do  so  with  full 
knowledge  of  the  limitations  of  the  power  of  these  officers  to  bind  tlieir 
corporations  under  the  particular  contract.* 

Limitations  as  to  Amount  of  Indebtedness  to  Be  Contracted.  —  Under  statute  in  many 
jurisdictions  the  board  is  cxpiessly  or  impliedly  limited  in  its  power  to  con- 
tract indebtedness,  to  the  funds  provided  and  appropriated  by  the  district 
electors.*  And  indeed  the  district  itself  may,  under  constitutional  or  statu- 
tory provision,  be  prohibited  from  incurring  indebtedness  in  excess  of  a 
prescribed  amount.' 

(b)  Contracts  for  Supplies  or  Appendages  —  Supplies.  —  The  authority  to  purchase 
ordinary  su[)plies,  sucli  as  school  furniture,  appliances,  and  apparatus,  is 
usually  vested  in  the  board  of  trustees  or  directors,  a  prior  authorization  by 
the  voters  of  the  district  being  held  necessary  under  some  statutes."* 


covenant  brought  against  the  school  district. 
McLain  v.  Snyder  Tp.  School  Dist.,  12  Pa.  St. 
J04. 

Requirement  that  Contract  Arise  upon  Considera- 
tion to  Be  Eendered  Subsequent  to  Its  Making.  — 
'I'erry  v.  Board  of  I'^ducation.  8t  Mo.  App.  22. 

Power  to  Contract  as  Trustees  and  Not  as  Agents. 
—  In  Neii'  Hampshire  it  has  been  held,  in  a  suit 
by  a  member  of  a  school  board  against  the  dis- 
trict for  reimbursement  for  money  paid  a 
teacher,  that  school  boards  are  trustees  and  not 
agents  for  the  district  and  can  contract  only  on 
the  credit  of  the  school  money  of  the  district 
and  not  on  the  credit  of  the  district,  and  hence 
that  no  action  lies  against  the  district.  Wheeler 
V.  Alton  School  Dist.,  66  N.  H.  540.  See  Steb- 
bins  f.  School  Dist.,  16  N.  H.  510:  Giles  v. 
School  Dist.  No.  14,  31  N.  H.  304;  Barrett  z'. 
School  Dist.  No.  2,  37  N.  H.  445. 

1.  Bloomington  School  Tp.  z:  National  School 
Furnishing  Co.,  107  Ind.  43  ;  Jay  v.  School  Dist. 
No.  I,  24  Mont.  219;  Wright  z'.  Rosenbloom,  52 
N.  Y.  App.  Div.  579;  State  r.  Freed.  6  Ohio 
Cir.  Dec.  550,  10  Ohio  Cir.  Ct.  294,  3  Ohio  Dec. 
314;  Rutlcdge  z'.  McCue,  10  Kulp  (Pa.)  57. 

Burden  of  Proof.  —  If  the  board  seeks  to  avoid 
its  contract  upon  the  ground  of  ultra  z'ires.  in 
that  the  contract  was  not  authorized  by  a  vote 
of  the  school  district,  the  burden  is  upon  it  to 
allege  and  prove  such  defense.  Morg,  i  v. 
Board  of  Education,  136  Cal.  245.  See  also 
Brown  7'.  Board   of  !-'.ducation.    103  Cal.   534. 

2.  Limitations  as  to  Amount  of  Indebtedness  to 
Be  Contracted  by  Board.  —  Anrlrus  z\  Board  of 
Directors,  108  La.  386  ;  School  Dist.  No.  Two  v. 
Stough,  4  Neb.  360 ;  State  -■.  Sabin,  39  Neb. 
570;  Andrews  v.  School  Dist..  49  Neb.  420; 
l^larkey  t'.  School  Dist.  No.  18,  58  Neb.  479; 
Pomerene  v.  School  Dist.  No.  56,  56  Neb. 
126;  Collier  v.  Peacock,  93  Tex.  255;  Davis  ?'. 
Board  of  Education,  38  W.  Va.  382;  McGilli- 
vray  t'.  Joint  School  Dist.  No.  i,  112  Wis.  354. 

But  where  the  contract  is  one  which  the 
board  is  authorized  to  make,  it  cannot  escape 
liability  for  its  breach  by  claiming  that  the  pub- 
lic funds  could  not  be  used  to  pay  damages. 
Moigan  f.  Board  of   Education.   1.^6  Cal.  245. 

Schoolhouse  Intended  to  Be  Sold  Not  to  Be  Con- 
sidered in  Estimating  Funds  on  Hand.  —  Davis  z\ 
Board   of    Education.   38    W.   \'a.   382. 

Contract  for  Employment  of  Teacher.  —  Morley 
V.  Power,  10  Lea  (Tenn.)  219:  Weatherly 
V.  Chattanooga,  (Tenn.  Ch.  1898)  48  S.  W.  Rep. 
137;   Collier  v.  Peacock,  93   Tex.  255;  Jay  v. 


59 


School  Dist.  No.  i,  24  Mont.  219.  See  also 
Rudy  V.  School  Dist.,  30  Mo.  App.  113.  Com- 
pare Harmony  School  Tp.  z'.  Moore,  80  Ind. 
2/6  ;  Harrison  School  Tp.  z\  McGregor,  96  Ind. 
185. 

Purchase  of  Supplies  or  Apparatus.  —  Clark  v. 
School  Directors,  78  111.  474  ;  Board  of  Educa- 
tion z\  Andrews,  51  Ohio  St.  199;  State  v. 
Freed,  6  Ohio  Cir.  Dec.  550,  10  Ohio  Cir.  Ct. 
294,  3  Ohio  Dec.  314;  School  Dist.  No.  3  v. 
Western  Tube  Co.,  5  Wyo.  185. 

3.  McGillivray  v.  Joint  School  Dist.  No.  i, 
112  Wis.  354;  School  Dist.  No.  3  v.  Western 
Tube  Dist..  5  Wyo.   185. 

Statute  Limiting  Amount  to  Be  Used  by  District 
in  Purchase  of  Books,  Apparatus,  Etc.  —  Hanna  v. 
Wright,  116  Iowa  275  ;  Johnson  -'.  School  Corp., 
(Iowa  1902)  90  N.  W.  Rep.  713.  See  also 
Bellmeyer  v.  Independent  Dist..  44  Iowa  564 ; 
Yaggy  Z'.   District  Tp.,  80   Iowa    121. 

Constitutional  Provision  for  Extending  Debt 
Limit  by  Vote  of  District.  —  Holmes,  etc..  Furni- 
ture Co.  ;■.   Hedges.   13  Wash.  696. 

Constitutional  Provision  Requiring  Assent  of 
Two-thirds  of  Voters  to  Indebtedness  Beyond 
Year's  Revenue.  —  Grady  v.  Fruit,  (Ky.  1901) 
63  S.  W.  Rep.  2S3 ;  Grady  v.  Landram,  (Ky. 
1 901)  63  S.  W.  Rep.  284. 

4.  Contracts  for  Supplies.  —  Taylor  v.  District 
Tp.,  25  Iowa  447  :  Manning  z\  District  Tp.,  28 
Iowa  332:  Monticello  Bank  v.  District  Tp.,  51 
Iowa  350  ;  Scott  z\  Independent  Dist.,  91  Iowa 
156;  School  Dist.  No.  29  z\  Perkins,  21  Kan. 
536,  30  .\m.  Rep.  447:  School  Dist.  No.  17  v. 
Swayze,  29  Kan.  211  :  Hartwell  f.  Littleton.  13 
Pick.  (Mass.)  229:  McLaren  z\  .Akron,  48  Mich. 
189  :  Fvnabe  f .  Board  of  Education,  67  Mich. 
262 ;  Western  Pub.  House  z-.  School  Dist.  No. 
I,  94  Mich.  262;  Johnson  v.  School  Dist.,  67 
Mo.  319. 

Furniture.  —  McGee  ?•.  Franklin  Pub.  Co.,  15 
Tex.   Civ.   -App.  216. 

Purchase  of  "Normal  Series  Grammar  Chart" 
Held  Not  Included  in  Authority  to  Purchase  Fur- 
niture.—  McGee  :•.  I'ranklin  Pub.  Co.,  15  Tex. 
Civ.    .App.    216. 

Musical  Instrument.  —  Bellmeyer  r.  Independ- 
ent Dist..  J4  Iowa  564  :  Knabe  v.  Board  of  Edu- 
cation.  67   Mich.   263. 

Music  Charts.  —  W.  P.  Myers  Pub.  Co.  v. 
White  River  School  Tp..  28  Ind.  App.  91. 

Maps  and  Charts.  —  Honaker  z\  Board  of 
Education,  42  W.  Va.  170,  57  Am.  St.  Rep.  847. 
See  also  State  z\  Freed,  3  Ohio  Dec.  314; 
Volume  XXV. 


Officers. 


SCHOOLS. 


Directors,  etc.,  of  School  DistrictB. 


Appendages.  —  So  the  directors  may  supply  the  necessary  appendages  to  the 
schoolhouse,  and  this,  under  some  statutes,  without  special  authority  from 
the  district.*  The  word  "  appendage,"  as  used  in  the  various  statutes,  means 
something  more  than  mere  school  apparatus  to  be  used  inside  of  the  building, 
and  has  been  held  to  include  fuel,'  fences,-'*  wells,'*  and  necessary  outhouses.* 

(c)  Contracts  Required  to  Be  in  Writing,  —  Sometimes,  under  statute,  certain  con- 
tracts by  the  district  officers  are  required  to  be  in  writing.®  But  no  such 
requirement  is,  in  general,  necessary  apart  from  statutory  provision.'' 

(d)  Necessity  of  Recording  Contract.  —  A  contract  which  the  board  of  directors  is 
authorized  to  make  will  not  be  void  because  no  record  thereof  is  made.**  So 
it  has  been  held  that  the  fact  that  the  minutes  of  the  board  authorized  the 
board  to  execute  a  written  contract  does  not  necessarily  exclude  evidence  of  a 
distinctive  parol  contract  made  at  the  same  time.® 

(e)  Contract  Between  Board  and  One  of  Its  Members.  —  A  contract  made  between  a 
board  and  one  of  its  members  is  held  to  be  against  public  policy  and  voidable 
by  the  district.*" 

(f)  Ratification  of  Unauthorized  or  Informal  Contract.  —  Where  the  contract  is  not 
made  in  conformity  with  the  law,  it  may  nevertheless  be  ratified  by  the  dis- 
trict, if  the  district  would  have  had  the  power  to  authorize  the  contract  in 
advance.**     But  it  has  been  held  that  where  a  contract  is  void  for  want  of 


Plymouth  First  Nat.  Bank  v.  Board  of  Educa- 
tion, 8  Ohio  Cir.  Dec.  283,  15  Ohio  Cir.  Ct. 
S6i. 

Heating  Apparatus.  —  Morgan  v.  Board  of 
Education,  136  Cal.  245.  See  also  Baltimore  v. 
Weatherby,    52   Md.   442. 

Purchase  of  "  Reading  Circle  Books  "  Held  Un- 
authorized. —  Marion  First  Nat.  Bank  v.  Adams 
School  Tp.,  17  Ind.  App.  375:  Elkhart  First 
Nat.  Bank  v.  Osborne,   18  Ind.  .A.pp.  442. 

Liability  for  Supplies  Purchased  by  De  Facto 
Officer. —  Smith  v.  Coman,  47  X.  Y.  App.  Div. 
116. 

Liability  of  City  Board  of  Education  to  Damages 
for  Breach  of  Contract  for  Supplies.  —  Morgan  v. 
Board  of   Education.   136  Cal.   J45. 

Presentment  of  Claims  for  Supplies  to  Board 
Prior  to  Bringing  Suit  Held  Necessary.  ^  Weir 
Furnace  Co.  f.  Independent  School  Dist.,  99 
Iowa    115. 

Contract  Fixing  Place  of  Payment  Elsewhere 
than  School  Treasury  Held  Unauthorized.  —  Weir 
Furnace  Co.  -'.  Independent  School  Dist.,  99 
Iowa    115. 

1.  Hemme   -•.    School    Dist.    Xo.    4,    30    Kan. 

Statute  Authorizing  Single  Director  to  Provide 
Appendages.  —  Creager  v.  School  Dist.  No. 
Xine,  62   Mich.    loi. 

Vote  of  District  Held  Necessary  to  Authorize 
Securing  Highway  for  Access  to  Schoolhouse.  — 
Bogaard  v.  Independent  Dist..  03  Iowa  269. 
See  also  Independent  Dist.  v.  Kelley,  55  Iowa 
568;  McShane  v.  Independent  Dist.,  76  Iowa 
333- 

2.  See  Creager  t'.  School  Dist.  No.  Xine,  62 
Mich.  loi. 

3.  Line  Fence  Held  to  Be  "  Necessary  Append- 
age." —  Creager  v.  School  Dist.  No.  Xine,  62 
Mich.   loi. 

4.  Digging  Well.  —  Hemme  j.  School  Dist. 
No.  4,  30  Kan.  377.  See  also  People  v.  Rea, 
185  III.  633  :  Neubauer  v.  Union  Tp.,  8  Ohio 
Dec.  349,  6  Ohio  X.  P.  530. 

6.  Construction  of  Outhouse.  —  Rauscher  v. 
Cronk,  (Supm.  Ct.  Gen.  T.)  3  N.  Y.  Supp.  470. 


60 


6.  Terry  v.  Board  of  Education,  84  Mo.  App. 
21. 

Contract  for  Services  of  Janitor.  —  Taylor  v. 
School  Dist.  No.  3,   i   Mo.  App.  Rep.  98. 

7.  Jackson  School  Tp.  v.  Shera,  8  Ind.  App. 
330. 

8.  Bellmeyer  v.  Independent  Dist.,  44  Iowa 
564 ;  Athearn  v.  Independent  Dist.,  33  Iowa 
105  ;  School  Directors  v.  McBride,  22  Pa.  St. 
215.  See  also  Mathewson  v.  School  Directors, 
2J,   Pa.  Co.  Ct.   121. 

Statute  Requiring  Filing  of  Duplicate  Copy.  — 
Globe  Furniture  Co.  v.  District  No.  7,  51  Mo. 
App.   549. 

9.  Sidney  School  Furniture  Co.  v.  Warsaw 
Tp.  School  Dist.,  158  Pa.  St.  35.  2,Z  W.  N.  C. 
(Pa.)    287. 

10.  Contract  Board  and  a  Member  Held  Voidable. 
—  School  Directors  v.  Parks,  85  111.  338 ; 
Hewitt  7'.  Board  of  Education,  94  111.  528; 
Weitz  V.  Independent  Dist.,  78  Iowa  n  \  Currie 
V.  School  Dist.  No.  26,  35  Minn.  163;  Trainer 
V.  Wolfe,  140  Pa.  St.  279;  Pickett  v.  School 
Dist.  Xo.  One,  25  Wis.  551,  3  Am.  Rep.  105. 
Compare   Brown  z\   School    Dist.,   55   Vt.  43. 

11.  Ratification  of  Unauthorized  Contract. — 
Board  of  Education  ;■.  Carolan,.  182  111.  119; 
Dul)uque  Female  College  v.  District  Tp.,  13 
Iowa  555;  School  Dist.  No.  17  v.  Swayze,  29 
Kan.  211;  Trainer  v.  Wolfe,  140  Pa.  St.  279; 
McGillivray  v.  Joint  School  Dist.  No.  i,  112 
Wis.  354.  See  also  Kreatz  v.  St.  Cloud  School 
Dist..  79  Minn.  14;  Kimball  v.  School  Dist. 
No.  8,  28  Vt.  8.  Compare  Grady  v.  Pruit,  (Ky. 
1901)   63  S.  W.  Rep.  283. 

Ratification  by  Acceptance  of  Benefits.  —  Clark 
School  Tp.  V.  Home  Ins..  etc.,  Co..  20  Ind.  App. 
543  :  Athearn  z\  Independent  Dist..  33  Iowa 
T05  :  Bellows  ?•.  District  Tp.,  70  Iowa  320; 
Everts  v.  District  Tp..  yy  Iowa  37  ;  Johnson  v. 
School  Corp..  Clowa  1902)  90  N.  W.  Rep.  713  ; 
Andrews  ?'.  School  Dist.  No.  4,  37  Minn.  96. 
Compare  Wells  ;•.  People.  71  111.  532:  School 
Directors  v.  Fogleman,  76  111.  189;  Gibson  v. 
School  Dist.  No.  5,  36  Mich.  404;  Johnson  v. 
School  Dist.,  67  Mo.  319;  Gehling  v.  School 
Volume  XXV. 


Officers. 


SCHOOLS. 


Directors,  etc.,  of  School  Bistricts. 


authority  on  the  part  of  the  board,  it  is  incapable  of  ratification  by  the  school 
di.strict  or  voters  thereof,  except  upon  the  observance  of  the  conditions 
essential  to  the  making  of  a  valid  contract  in  the  first  instance.* 

(5)  Mandamus  to  Compel  Performance  of  Duty.  —  A  positive  official  duty 
imposed  upon  a  board  of  directors,  which  is  not  discretionary,  may  be 
enforced  by  mandamus.*  But,  as  a  general  rule,  mandamus  will  not  lie  to 
compel  action  where  the  aggrieved  party  has  an  adequate  remedy  by  appeal 
to  some  higher  official.'  In  some  cases,  however,  it  is  held  that  the  remedy 
by  appeal  is  not  e.xclusive."* 

/.  COMPEX.SATIOX.  —  Directors  in  some  states  are  not  allowed  compensa- 
tion for  their  services. •"*  But  in  New  Hampshire  provision  is  made  for  a  rea- 
sonable compensation  to  members  of  the  school  board,®  and  it  has  been  held 
that  in  the  absence  of  any  apportionment  or  discrimination  made  or  author- 
ized by  the  district  in  the  distribution  of  the  salary  among  the  members  of 
the  board,  it  is  to  be  divided  equally.' 

g.  Personal  Liability  — (i)  On  Contract.  — Directors  of  a  school  dis- 
trict, it  has  been  held,  may  be  liable  individually  upon  a  contract  made  by 
them  in  their  own  names,  although  describing  themselves  as  school  directors, 
or  members  of  the  board  of  directors,  in  the  absence  of  anything  further  on 
the  face  of  the  contract  indicating  a  purpose  to  bind  the  school  district.*  But 
in  other  jurisdictions  it  has  been  held  that  notes  executed  by  individuals  sign- 
ing themselves  "  school  trustees,"  or  the  like,  are  binding  on  the  district 
where  they  are  executed  on  considerations  moving  only  to  the  use  and  benefit 
of  the  district,  and  that  the  words  "  school  trustees  "  in  such  case  are  not  to 
be  regarded  as  mere  descriptio  personce ;  the  decisions  being  based  on  the 
presumption  that  in  making  contracts  on  behalf  of  the  public  no  personal 
responsibility  is  intended  to  be  incurred  by  public  agents.® 


Dist.  Xo.  56,  10  Xeb.  239;  Morristown  First 
Xat.  Bank  v.  Felknor,  (Tenn.  Ch.  1898;  48  S. 
W.  Rep.  392. 

1.  Markey  v.  School  Dist.  No.  18,  58  Neb. 
-;  79-    See  also  Taylor  :■.  District  Tp.,  25  Iowa  447. 

2.  Enforcing  Performance  of  Duty  by  Mandamus. 
—  Benjamin  -•.  District  Tp.,  50  Iowa  648; 
Odendahl  v.  Russell,  86  Iowa  669  (distinguish- 
ing Hightower  v.  Overhaulser,  65  Iowa  347 ; 
Barnett  f.  Independent  Dist.,  73  lo-.va  134;  ; 
People  V.  School  Dist.  No.  13,  fSupm.  Ct.  Spec. 
T.)  8  How.  Pr.  (N.  Y.)  125,  6  How.  Pr.  (N. 
Y.)  332;  People  V.  Van  Leuven,  CSupm.  Ct. 
Spec.  T.)  8  How.  Pr.  (N.  Y.)  358;  People  v. 
Green  CSupm.  Ct.  Gen.  T.)  10  How.  Pr.  (N. 
Y. )  468.  But  see  People  v.  Snyder,  (Supm. 
Ct.)    10  How.   Pr.    (N.  Y.)    143. 

3.  Marshall  j'.  Sloan,  35  Iowa  445. 

4.  Perkins  v.  Independent  School  Dist.,  56 
Iowa  476. 

5.  CompensationNot  Allowed. —Moore  v.  Inde- 
pendent Dist.,  55  Iowa  654 :  Hinman  z:  School 
Dist.  Xo.  One,  4  Mich.  168.  See  also  Inde- 
pendent School  Dist.  z:  Dow,  (Tex.  Civ.  App. 
1901)   63   S.  W.  Rep.   1027. 

Compensation  Allowed  Treasurer  and  Secretary 
of  Board.  —  Livingston  f.  Board  of  Trustees.  99 
111.  564;  Yaggv-  v.  District  Tp..  80  Iowa  121. 
See  also  Gibson  -•.  Roach,  2  X.  Y.  App.  Div.  86. 
Compare  Independent  School  Dist.  v.  Dow, 
'Tex.  Civ.  .\pp.  1 90 1)  63  S.  W.  Rep.  1027. 

Eight  to  Keimbnrsement  for  Legitimate  Ex- 
penses.—  Wilson  f.  Cambridge.  loi  Mass.  142; 
Manchester  z\  Potter.  30  N.  H.  409. 

6.  See  Manchester  z:  Potter.  30  N.  H.  409 ; 
Stone  z\  Towne.  67  N.  H.  113. 

7.  Stone  v.  Towne,  67  N.  H.  113. 


8.  Contracts  Imposing  Individnal  Liability. — 

Sharp  V.  Smith,  32  111.  App.  336 ;  School  Di- 
rectors V.  Miller,  54  111.  338 ;  Western  Pub. 
House  V.  District  Tp.,  84  Iowa  loi  ;  Fowler  z: 
Atkinson,  5  Minn.  505  ;  Bingham  v.  Stewart.  13 
Minn.  106 ;  Western  Pub.  House  v.  Bachman, 
2  S.  Dak.  512;  Western  Pub.  House  z\  Mur- 
dick,  4  S.  Dak.  207.  Compare  Lyon  v.  Adam- 
son,  7  Iowa  509;  Harvey  v.  Irvine,  11  Iowa  82; 
Independent  Dist.  -•.  Reichard,  50  Iowa  98 ; 
Baker  v.  Chambles,  4  Greene  (Iowa)  428 ;  John- 
son V.  School  Corp.,  (Iowa  1902)  90  X.  W. 
Rep.  713- 

Statutory  Liability  on  Official  Bond  for  Failure 
to  Comply  with  Statute  Limiting  Power  to  Con- 
tract Indebtness.  —  State  t.  Helms,  136  Ind. 
122. 

Estoppel  of  Directors  as  Sureties  to  Plead  Non- 
liability of  School  District.  —  In  Perrj-  z:  Brown, 
I  Ky.  1899)  51  S.  W.  Rep.  457.  it  was  held  that 
where  the  trustees  of  a  school  district  person- 
ally undertook  to  guarantee  the  payment  of  a 
note  given  by  them  for  the  district,  they  were 
estopped  to  plead  the  nonliability  of  the  cor- 
poration for  the  debt  on  the  ground  that  they 
acted  ultra  zires  in  attempting  to  bind  the  dis- 
trict. 

No  Personal  Liability  on  Contract  Made  Ex- 
pressly Binding  on  District.  —  Slone  v.  Berlin, 
88  Iowa  205  ;  Goodin  r.  Common  School  Dist., 
(Kv.  1803)  23  S.  W.  Rep.  964;  Grady  z:  Pruit, 
(Ky.   looi)   63   S.  W.  Rep.  283. 

9.  State  v.  Helms.  136  Ind.  122;  Monticello 
f.  Kendall,  72  Ind.  93,  37  Am.  Rep.  139;  Mac- 
kenzie v.  Edinburg.  72  Ind.  194:  Hodges  v. 
Runyan,  30  Mo.  491.  See  further  the  title 
Public  Officers,  vol.  23,  p.  380  et  seq. 

Volume  XXV. 


Officers. 


SCHOOLS. 


Directors,  etc.,  of  School  Districts. 


Contract  with  Teacher.  —  So  it  has  been  held  that  no  recovery  can  be  had  for 
a  teacher's  services  against  the  members  of  a  school  board  individually  on 
a  contract  made  by  them  as  a  "  committee  "  with  a  teacher  within  the  line  of 
their  duty.*  But  where  school  trustees  fail  to  raise  and  collect  the  school 
funds  as  required  by  law,  it  has  been  held  that  they  may  be  personally  liable 
to  the  teacher  for  a  failure  to  pay  him  as  agreed.* 

(2)  In  Tort  —  (a)  To  Private  Individual.  —  School  directors  are  not  liable  in 
damages  to  a  private  individual  for  errors  on  their  part  in  the  performance  of 
the  duties  of  their  office,  where  it  is  not  shown  that  they  have  acted  in  bad 
faith. ■•« 

Encouraging  Excessive  Punishment  of  Pupil.  —  It  has  been  held  that  if  excessive 
corporal  punishment  is  indicted  by  a  teacher  on  a  pupil,  school  directors  who 
encourage,  aid,  or  abet  the  teacher  are  answerable  therefor,  regardless  of 
whether  the  motive  which  prompted  him  or  them  was  malicious  or  not.* 

(b)  Misappropriation  of  Funds.  —  School  trustees  or  directors  may  become  civilly 
liable  to  the  state  or  the  proper  public  body  for  the  conversion  or  the  misap- 
propriation of  school  funds.*  Sometimes  provision  is  expressly  made  by 
statute  for  imposing  a  personal  liability  on  school  directors  or  trustees  for 
losses  sustained  by  the  school  fund  by  reason  of  their  failure  to  perform  the 
duties  required  of  them.** 

//.  Removal  or  Vacation  of  Office.  —  The  ofifice  of  a  school  trustee 
or  director  may  be  vacated  by  his  removal  from  the  district,^  or  by  his  assum- 
ing other  employment  prohibited  by  statute,''*  or  by  the  abolition  of  the  office.® 
So  various  statutory  provisions  exist  in  the  different  states  authorizing  the 
removal  of  members  of  a  district  board  for  cause,  such  as  incompetency,  or 
official  misconduct,  or  neglect  of  duty.*** 


1.  Robinson  v.   Howard,   84   N.  Car.    151. 

2.  I'erguson  v.  True,  3  Bush  (Ky.)  255. 
Compare  Jacquemin  v.  Andrews,  40  Mo.  App. 
507. 

3.  Liability  in  Tort  to  Private  Individual.  — 
Wood  V.  Farmer,  6<)  Iowa  533.  See  Fertich  v. 
Michener,  11 1  Ind.  472,  60  Am.  Rep.  709. 

4.  Haycraft  v.  Grigsby,  88  Mo.   App.   354. 

5.  Liability  for  Misappropriation  of  School  Funds. 
—  See  State  v.  Julian,  oj  Ind.  2<)2;  School  Dist. 
.\'o.  3  V.  Snialley,  58  Mo.  App.  658  ;  Dickinson 
i "p.  V.  Linn,  36  Pa.  St.  431.  And  see  generally 
the  title  Puni-ic  Officeks,  vol.  22,,  p.  i-j2. 

Nonliability  of  Director  Not  Concurring  in  Im- 
proper Disbursement  of  Another.  —  School  trustees 
arc  not  liable  Kjr  the  improper  disbursement 
of  money  by  one  of  their  number  acting  as 
treasurer,  in  which  act  they  had  no  part.  State 
V.  Julian,  93   Ind.  292. 

6.  Adams  :•.  State,  82  111.  13-';  People  r.  Rea, 
18s   111.  633. 

7.  Vacation  by  Removal  from  District.  —  Giles 
'■.  School  Dist.  No.  14,  31  N.  H.  304;  Gilder- 
sleeve  V.  Board  of  Education.  (C.  PI.  Gen.  T.) 
17  Abb.  Pr.  (N.  Y.)  201;  Graham  v.  School 
Dist.  No.  69.  3.3  Oregon  263.  See  also  State  v. 
\'an   Patten,  (N'ev.  1901)   66  Pac.  Rep.  822. 

Where  Newly  Created  District  Includes  Pruden- 
tial Committee  of  Old  District  —  Stevens  v.  Kent, 
-•6    \'t,    ':,"?•■ 

8.  Vacation  of  Office  by  Employment  as  Teacher. 
-  Ferguson  v.  True,  3  Bush   fKy.)   255. 

9.  Abolition  of  Office.  -  See  Duer  v.  Dashiell. 
',•    Md,  660. 

Effect  of  Vacation  of  Term  of  Office  of  Board  by 
Legislature  on  Tenure  of  Secretary  Appointed  by 
Board.  —  In  Duer  v.  Dashiell,  91  Md.  660,  it 
was   held  that  where   the  term   of  office  of   a 


62 


board  of  education  is  vacated  by  the  legislature, 
the  term  of  office  of  a  secretary  and  treasu'vr 
appointed  by  the  board  was  terminated  upon 
the  appointment  of  his  successor  by  the  suc- 
ceeding board  though  the  old  board  had  agreed 
to  fix  his  term  of  office  for  a  stipulated  period. 

10.  Removal  for  Cause.  —  Stephens  v.  Marrs,  (Ky. 
1898)  44  S.  W.  Rep.  102;  Matthews  v.  Rogers, 
107  Ky.  236;  Matter  of  Light,  (Supm.  Ct.  Spec. 
T.)  21  Misc.  (N.  Y.)  737;  People  v.  Skinner,  37 
N.  Y.  App.  Div.  44 ;  Hendricks  v.  State,  20 
Tex.   Civ.  App.   178. 

Failure  to  Attend  Meetings.  —  Com.  v.  Camp- 
bell, 23  Pa.  Co.  Ct.  313;  Keating  v.  Jordan, 
181  Pa.  St.  168;  Com.  V.  Gibbons,  196  Pa. 
St.    97- 

Failure  to  Perfect  Organization  Within  Required 
Time.  —  Butler  Tp.  School  Dist.  Case,  158  Pa. 
St.  159. 

Failure  to  Maintain  Schools.  —  Woodcock  v. 
Bolster,    js    \'i    (>.^2. 

Neglect  to  Establish  Number  of  Schools  Required 
by  Law.  —  Connocjuenessing  School  Directors, 
9  Pa.  Co.  Ct.  425  ;  Colerain  School  Directors, 
II  York  Leg.  Rec.  (Pa.)  113;  Washington  Tp. 
School  Directors,  15  Pa.  Co.  Ct.  509.  Com{>ar£ 
Ohio  Tp.  School  Directors,  9  Pa.  Co.  Ct. 
.392. 

Failure  of  Duty  Through  Error  of  Judgment 
Held  No  Ground  for  Removal.  —  In  re  School 
Directors,  19  Pa.  Co.  Ct.  264:  Muhlenberg  Tp. 
School  Diiectors.  25  Pa.  Co.  Ct.  10;  People  v. 
Skinner,  37   N.  Y.  App.  Div.  44. 

Provisions  for  Notice  and  Hearing.  —  Com.  v. 
Gibbons.  196  Pa.  St.  97;  Stephens  r>.  Marrs. 
^Ky.  1898)  44  S.  W.  Rep.  102;  Smythe  v. 
Lapsley,  64  S.  W.  Rep.  733,  23  Ky.  L.  Rep. 
1065  ;  Wenzel  v.  Township  Board,  49  Mich.  25. 
Volume  XXV. 


Sckool  Funds. 


SCHOOLS. 


Legislative  Control. 


Resignation.  ~  To  vacate  his  office  by  resignation  a  trustee  or  director  must 
follow  the  steps  prescribed  by  statute.*  Thus,  in  a  jurisdiction  where  by 
statute  the  resignation  of  a  trustee  is  required  to  be  in  writing,  a  verbal 
resignation  will  be  insufficient.* 

IX.  School  Funds  —  1.  In  General.  —  Under  the  statutes  and  constitutions 
of  the  different  states  various  provisions  are  made  for  the  creation  and  main- 
tenance of  school  funds.*  Any  moneys  or  property  set  apart  by  law,  derived 
from  any  source  whatever,  for  the  support  of  the  public-school  system,  are 
embraced  in  the  term  "  school  fund."  * 

2.  Legislative   Control.  —  The  legislature,  as  a  general  rule,  is  vested  with 


Power  to  Declare  Vacancy  Vested  in  the  Courts. 

—  Butler  Tp.  School  Dist.  Case,  158  Pa.  St. 
159.  See  also  Union  Tp.  School  Directors,  3 
Pa.  Dist.   132. 

1.  Tender  of  Resignation  to  District  Board  Held 
Kecessary.  —  State  v.  Nobles,   109  Wis.  202. 

2.  Verbal  Resignation  Held  Insufficient. — 
Davis  V.  Connor,  (Ky.  1899)  52  S.  W.  Rep. 
945;  Davis  V.  Humphrey,  (Ky.  1899)  52  S.  W. 
Rep.  946;  Graham  v.  Jackson,  66  S.  W.  Rep. 
1009,  2Z  Ky.  L.  Rep.  2235.  See  also  Hunlock 
V.  Jones,  9  Kulp  (Pa.)  278. 

3.  See  the  statutes  and  constitutions  of  the 
various  states. 

4.  "  School  Funds  "  Defined,  —  King  v.  Foun- 
tain County,  49  Ind.  19. 

Income  from  School  Lands  or  from  Investment 
of  Proceeds  of  Sale — United  States.  —  Spring- 
field Tp.  V.  Quick,  22  How.  (U.  S.)  56. 

Alabama.  —  Long  v.  Brown,  4  Ala.  622. 

Arkansas.  —  Widner  v.  State,  49  Ark.  172; 
School  Dist.  V.   Driver,  50  Ark.  346. 

California.  —  Wyman  v.  Banvard,  22  Cal. 
524. 

Illinois.  —  Bradley  v.  Case,  4  111.  585  ;  School 
Trustees  v.   Petefish,    181    111.  255. 

Indiana.  —  State  v.  Springfield  Tp.,  6  Ind.  83  ; 
Davis  V.  State,  44  Ind.  38 ;  Hamilton  County  v. 
State,  122  Ind.  333. 

Iowa.  —  State   v.    Hendershott,    21    Iowa    437. 

Louisiana.  —  School   Directors  v.  Hernandez, 

31  La.  Ann.   158. 

Mississippi.  —  Murray  v.  Smith,  28  Miss.  31  ; 
Morton  v.  Grenada  Male,  etc.,  Academies,  8 
Smed.  &  M.   (Miss.)    77i- 

Missouri.  —  Maupin  v.  Parker,  3   Mo.  310. 

Nebraska.  —  In  re  School  Fund,  15  Neb.  684. 

New  York.  —  People  v.  Davenport,  30  Hun 
(N.  Y.)    177. 

Ohio.  —  Greene  Tp.  v.  Campbell,  16  Ohio 
St.  II. 

Oregon.  —  Pennoyer  v.  Willis,  (Oregon  1893) 

32  Pac.  Rep.  57- 

South  Dakota.  —  Heston  7'.  Alayhew,  9  S. 
Dak.  501. 

Tennessee.  —  Lowry  v.  Francis,  2  Yerg. 
(Tenn.)  534 ;  Goodman  v.  Tennessee  Min.  Co., 
I  Head  (Tenn.)   172. 

Texas.  —  Houston  Tap,  etc.,  R.  Co.  r.  Ran- 
dolph, 24  Te.x.  317;  Boydston  v.  Rockwall 
County,  86  Tex.   234. 

And  see  the  title   State  and  Public  Lands. 

Funds  Raised  by  Taxation  —  United  States.  — 
McGahey  t'.  Virginia,  135  U.  S.  662;  New 
Orleans  v.  Fisher,  (C.  C.  A.)  91  Fed.  Rep.  ^JA- 

Alabama.  —  Albertville  v.  Rains,  107  Ala. 
691. 

Arkansas.  —  Union  County  Ct.  v.  Robinson, 
27  Ark.  116. 


Delazvare.  —  Steward  v.  Jefferson,  3  Harr. 
(Del.)   335- 

Illinois.  —  People  v.  Yeazel,  84  111.  539. 

Kentucky.  —  Newman  v.  Thompson,  (Ky. 
1887)  4  S.  W.  Rep.  341  ;  Morganfield  Public 
Schools  V.  Thomas,  (Ky.  1891)  15  S.  W.  Rep. 
670;  Belle  Point  v.  Pence,  (Ky.  1891)  17  S.  W. 
Rep.  197  ;  Louisville  v.  Louisville  School  Board, 
(Ky.  1895)  32  S.  W.  Rep.  406;  Collins  v.  Hen- 
derson, II   Bush  (Ky.)   74. 

Maryland.  —  Burgess  r.  Pue,  2  Gill  (Md.) 
II  ;  O'Neal  v.  Washington  County,  27  Md.  227. 

Micliigan.  —  Auditor-Gen.  v.  State  Treasurer, 
45  Mich.  161  ;  Auditor-Gen.  -•.  McA-rthur,  87 
Mich.  457. 

Missouri.  —  Wallendorf  v.  County  Justices, 
45   Mo.  228. 

Nebraska.  —  School  Dist.  No.  Two  v.  Stough, 

4  Neb.   357- 

Nevada.  —  School  Dist.  No.  i  v.  Ormsby 
County,  I   Nev.  334. 

Neiv  lersey.  —  State  v.  Kingsland,  23  N.  J. 
L.  85;  State  V.  Hammell,  31  N.  J.  L.  446. 

North  Carolina.  —  Goldsboro  Graded  School 
V.  Broadhurst,   109  N.  Car.  228. 

Pennsylvania.  —  .-Mter  v.  McBride,  7  Pa.  St. 
147:  Hackett  v.  Emporium  Borough  School 
Dist.,   150  Pa.  St.  220,  30  W.  N.  C.    (Pa.)  411- 

Soiitli  Carolina.  —  E.v  p.  Florence  School,  43 
S.  Car.  1 1  ;  School  Com'rs  v.  Folk,  45  S.  Car. 
491. 

Vermont.  —  See  State  v.  Jericho,  12  Vt.  127. 

And   see  the  title  Tax.'VTIOK. 

Dog  Tax  Fund.  —  Maloy  v.  Madget,  47  Ind. 
241  ;  School  City  v.  Jaquith,  90  Ind.  496;  Tag- 
gart  V.  State.    142   Ind.  668. 

Fines  and  Forfeitures.  —  Yankton  County  v. 
Faulk,  I  Dakota  334 ;  Toledo,  etc..  R.  Co.  v. 
Stephenson.  131  Ind.  203;  Woodward  f.  Gregg, 
3  Greene  (Iowa)  2S7  :  Lucas  County  v.  Wilson, 
61  Iowa  141  :  Board  of  Trustees  v.  Harrods- 
burg  Educational  Dist.,  (Ky.  1887)  7  S.  W. 
Rep.  312;  State  v.  .Stune,  69  Miss.  375;  State 
V.  Heins,  14  Neb.  477;  Hodge  v.  Marietta,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  108  N.  Car.  24;  State  v.  De  Lano,  80 
Wis.  259.  See  also  School  Dist.  No.  30  v. 
School  Dist.,  63  Neb.  44.  Compare  Katzenstein 
V.  Raleigh,  etc.,  R.  Co..  84  N.  Car.  688. 

Proceeds  of  Liquor  Licenses.  —  White  v.  Lincoln, 

5  Neb.  505  :  Tecumsch  f.  Phillips,  5  Neb.  305  ; 
State  V.  McConncl,  8  Neb.  28 ;  Hastings  v. 
Thorne,  8  Neb.  160;  State  v.  Wilcox,  17  Neb. 
219;  State  V.  Brodboll.  28  Neb.  254;  State  v. 
Fenton,  29  Neb.  348  ;  State  v.  White.  29  Neb. 
288:  Kas  r.  State,  63  Neb.  581  ;  Board  of  Edu- 
cation V.  Tafoya,  6  N.  Mex.  292;  State  v.  Der- 
ham.    54   S.   Car.   349. 

Gaming  Licenses.  —  Romero  v.  Board  of  Edu- 
cation, 10  N.  Mex.  67. 
63  Volume  XXV. 


School  Funds. 


SCHOOLS. 


Apportionment. 


complete  authority  over  the  public-school  fund,  provided  it  be  used  for  pur- 
poses  advancing  the  interests  of  the  schools  and  school  system.*  l^ut  the 
legislature  is  very  generally  piohibited  under  the  state  constitutions  from 
appropriating  the  public-school  funds  to  any  other  than  public-school 
purposes.* 

Appropriation  of  Fund  for  Schools  Other  than  Public  Schools.  —  The  school  fund  can- 
not, under  the  state  constitutions,  be  diverted  or  appropriated  bv  the  legisla- 
ture for  the  benefit  of  pupils  in  private  schools,  or  indeed,  as  a  general  rule, 
in  any  schools  other  than  those  that  are  strictly  public  or  common  schools, 
and  this  though  the  particular  institution  to  be  benefited  is  a  charitable 
institution.* 

3.  Apportionment.  —  Various  statutory  and  constitutional  provisions  exist 
calling  for  an  equitable  apportionment  of  the  school  funds  among  the  several 
school  districts  or  other  political  subdivisions  of  the  state,  by  designated  offi- 


Act  Transferring  Railroad  and  Sinking  Fund 
to  School  Fund.  —  State  v.  Storey  County,  17 
Nev.  96. 

Drainage  Money.  —  School  Dist.  v.  Edwards, 
46   Wis.   150. 

Effects  Found  by  Coroner  on  Dead  Body.  —  State 
V.  Marion  County,  85   Ind.  489. 

Proceeds  from  Sale  of  Estrays  and  Property 
Taken  up  Adrfit.  —  Tippecanoe  County  v.  State, 
9J   Ind.   353. 

Escheats.  —  Thomas  v.  Frederick  County 
School,  7  Gill  &  J.  (Md.)  369;  Murray  v.  Smith, 
2?s  Miss.  31. 

1.  Legislative  Control  in  General.  —  Halbert 
V.  Sparks,  9  Bush  ( Ky. )  259;  School  Dist.  Xo. 
5  -■.  Hopkins,  7  Okla.    154. 

The  Insurance  of  School  Property  out  of  the 
territorial  school  fund  is  a  proper  exercise  by 
the  legislature  of  the  power  to  appropriate 
money  for  school  purposes.  Bryan  v.  Board  of 
Education,  7  Okla.  160;  School  Dist.  No.  5  v. 
Hopkins,   7   Okla.    154. 

Appropriation  Out  of  School  Fund  to  Pay  Salary 
of  State  Superintendent  Held  Constitutional.  — 
St:iic   :■.    W'estcrticld.    2.\    Xcv.    29. 

Statute  Permitting  District  Board  to  Use  Certain 
Percentage  of  Funds  in  Transportation  of  Pupils. 
■ — Carey  r.  Tliompson.  66  \'t.  665. 

Abdication  of  Power  Unconstitutional.  —  It  has 
been  held  that  the  legislature  has  no  power  to 
abdicate  its  control  over  the  school  fund  and 
abandon  to  the  county  courts,  to  be  performed 
or  not  at  their  pleasure,  the  duty  and  power 
which  the  constitution  imposed  upon  and  vested 
in    them   alone.      Auditor   t'.    Holland,    14    Bush 

(Ky.)  147. 

2.  Appropriation  of  School  Funds  to  Other  than 
School  Purposes  Forbidden. —  State  --.  Fitzpat- 
rick.  (Idaho  1807)  51  Pac.  Rep.  112;  Superin- 
tendent of  Pulilic  Instruction  X'.  Auditor,  97 
Ky.  180;  Halbert  v.  Sparks,  9  Bush  (Ky.)  260: 
Collins  V.  Henderson,  11  Bush  (Ky.)  74;  State 
7'.  Board  of  Liquidators,  29  La.  Ann.  77  ;  Sun 
Mut.  Ins.  Co.  V.  Board  of  Liquidation,  31  La. 
.\nn.  175  :  Knox  County  <•.  Hunolt,  ito  Mo.  67; 
State  V.  Rhodes,  4  Nev.  .^12;  State  v.  Dovey, 
T9  Nev.  396:  State  r.  Westerfield.  22  Nev.  46S ; 
People  V.  Allen.  42  N.  Y.  404 :  Gordon  v. 
Comes.  47  N.  Y.  6t6:  Jernigan  ?•.  Finley.  00 
Tex.  205.     See  also  Sheldon  7'.  Purdy,   17  Wash. 

3.  Diver'^ion  of  Funds  for  Benefit  of  Pupils  in 
Private  Schools.  —  L'nderwood  7-.  Wood.  93   Ky. 


64 


177;  Otken  V.  Lamkin,  56  Miss.  758;  Curtis  v. 
Whipple,  24  Wis.  350,  i  Am.  Rep.  187.  Com- 
pare State  V.  Vaughan,  99  Mo.  332 ;  Page  v. 
Haverhill  Academy,  63  N.  H.  216;  Holt  v. 
Antrim,   64   N.    H.   284. 

Diversion  of  Fund  to  State  University  Not  Sub- 
ject to  Supervision  of  the  State  Superintendent 
Illegal.  —  Elsberry  7-.  Seay,  83  Ala.  614.  See 
also   State  z-.  Graham,  25   La.  .\nn.  440. 

Charitable  Free  School  Not  Subject  to  Super- 
vision of  Public-school  Authorities. — Jenkins  v. 
Andover,  103  Mass.  94  {distinguishing  Gushing 
V.  Newburyport,  10  Met.  (Mass.)  511);  Allen 
V.  School  Dist.  No.  2,  15  Pick.  (Mass.)  35; 
Hall's  Free  School  Trustees  v.  Home,  80  Va. 
470.  See  also  People  v.  McAdams,  82  111. 
356. 

Appropriation  of  Common-school  Fund  to  Orphan 
Asylum  Held  Unconstitutional,  —  People  7'.  Board 
of  Education,  13  Barb.  (X.  Y.)  400;  St.  Pat- 
rick's Orphan  Asylum  v.  Board  of  Education, 
(Supm.  Ct.  Gen.  T.)  34  How.  Pr.  (X.  Y.)  227. 
And  this  though  the  asylum  is  a  state  or  city 
institution.  State  v.  Westerfield,  22,  Nev.  468  ; 
In  re  Malone.  21   S.  Car.  435. 

But  in  Nciv  York  it  has  been  held  that  the 
appropriation  of  money  raised  by  a  city  for 
school  purposes  to  an  orphan  asylum  is  not  pro- 
hibited by  the  constitution.  St.  Patrick's  Orphan 
Asylum  7'.  Board  of  Education,  (Supm.  Ct. 
Gen.  T.)  34  How.  Pr.  (N.  Y.)  227:  Sargent  v. 
Board  of  Education,  (Supm.  Ct.  Spec.  T.)  35 
Misc.  (N.  Y.)  321.  See  also  People  t*.  Glowacki, 
2  Thomp.  &  C.   (N.  Y.)  436. 

Private  Charitable  Institution  for  the  Blind.  — 
See   I'ecipic  ■:.   Fitch,   154   X.  ^■.    14. 

Appropriation  to  Normal  School  from  Common- 
school  Fund  Held  Unconstitutional.  —  Gordon  v. 
Cnrncp.  47  X.  Y.  608;  State  Female  Normal 
Scliool  7'.  Auditors.  79  Va.   2t,t,. 

Aiding  Sectarian  Schools  Forbidden  by  Consti- 
tution. —  Conk  County  7'.  Chicago  Industrial 
School,  125  111.  540,  8  Am.  St.  Rep.  386;  Atchi- 
son, etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Atchison.  47  Kan.  712; 
Otken  V.  Lamkin.  56  Miss.  758  :  State  v.  Hal- 
lock,  16  Nev.  Ti-T^:  Synod  of  Dakota  v.  State, 
2  S.  Dak.  366.  See  also  Nance  v.  Johnson,  84 
Tex.  401. 

Appropriation  to  Orphan  Asylum  in  Which  Re- 
ligious Instruction  Is  Given  Held  Unconstitutional. 
—  State  7'.  Hallock,  16  Xev.  Z73-  Compare 
Sargent  7".  Board  of  Education,  (Supm.  Ct. 
Spec.   T.)    33   Misc.    (N.   Y.)    321. 

Volume  XXV. 


School  Funds. 


SCHOOLS. 


Arportionment. 


cers,  a  very  general  provision  being  that  the  fund  shall  be  distributed  according 
to  tile  number  of  children  of  school  age  residing  in  each  district.* 

Allowance  for  Unequal  Apportionment  in  Subsequent  Apportionment.  —  III    ^ome  jurisdic- 


1.  Apportionment  of  School  Funds  ■ —  Colorado. 
—  Cooke  I'.  School  Dist.  No.  12,  12  Colo. 
453- 

Florida.  —  State  v.  Barnes,  22  Fla.  8. 

Illinois.  —  School  Directors  v.  School  Direct- 
ors, 36  111.  140. 

Indiana.  —  State  Z'.  Mathews,  150  Ind.  597; 
Taggart  v.  State,   142  Ind.  668. 

Kentucky.  —  Louisville  School  Board  v. 
Superintendent  of  Public  Instruction,  102  Ky. 
394 ;  Louisville  School  Board  v.  McChesney, 
(Ky.  1900)  58  S.  W.  Rep.  427,  22  Ky.  L.  Rep. 
506. 

Louisiana.  —  Andrus  v.  Parish  Board  of 
Directors,   108  La.  386. 

Montana. —  School  Dist.  No.  Seven  v.  Pat- 
terson,  10  Mont.   17. 

Nebraska.  —  Kas  v.  State,  63  Neb.  581. 

New  Mexico.  —  Romero  v.  Board  of  Educa- 
tion, 10  N.  Mex.  67. 

New  York.  —  Bennett  v.  Burch,  i  Den.  (N. 
Y.)   141. 

North  Carolina.  —  Board  of  Education  z'. 
State  Board  of  Education,   114  N.  Car.  313. 

Ohio.  —  Board  of  Education  v.  Cheney,  5 
Ohio   St.  67. 

Oklahoma.  —  School  Dist.  No.  5  v.  School 
Dist.   No.  6,   II    Okla.   72. 

Texas.  —  Bell  v.  Kuykendall.  3  Tex.  Civ. 
App.  209 ;  Oge  V.  Froboese,  (Tex.  Civ.  App. 
1902)  66  S.  W.  Rep.  688 ;  Wester  v.  Oge,  (Tex. 
Civ.  App.  1902)   68  S.  W.  Rep.   1005. 

Vermont.  —  Town  School  Dist.  v.  School 
Dist.  No.  2,  72  Vt.  451. 

Washington.  —  School  Dist.  No.  43  v.  Fair- 
child,  10  Wash.  198;  State  v.  Cheetham,  23 
Wash.   666. 

Inmates  of  Orphan  Asylum  Held  Not  to  Be  In- 
cluded in  Estimate  of  Children  of  School  Age.  — 
State  z'.   Dovey,    19   Nev.  396. 

Distribution  in  Proportion  to  Attendance  During 
Preceding  Year.  —  Stockton  School  Dist.  ■<■. 
Wright,  134  Cal.  64;  School  Board  v.  Board  of 
Education,  157  N.Y.  566.  See  also  Town  School 
Dist.  V.  School  Dist.  No.  2,  72  Vt.  452. 

Apportionment  According  to  School  Census.  — 
Louisville  School  Board  v.  Superintendent  of 
Public  Instruction,  102  Ky.  304;  School  Dist. 
No.  7  V.  Sherman,  59  N.  J.  L.  375  ;  Bell  v. 
Kuykendall.   3   Tex.   Civ.  App.   209. 

Yearly  Census  Held  Not  Required  by  Provision 
for  Apportionment  According  to  Census.  —  Louis- 
ville School  Board  z'.  Superintendent  of  Public 
Instruction.   102  Ky.   394. 

Statute  Authorizing  Equal  Distribution  Held 
Unconstitutional.  —  District  Tp.  v.  County 
Judge.    13    Iowa   250. 

Statute  Authorizing  Towns  to  Direct  in  What 
Manner  Funds  Are  to  Be  Assigned  Held  Constitu- 
tional. —  School  Dist.  No.  i  z\  Prentiss,  66  N. 
H.   ,45. 

Making  Reports  as  Prerequisite  to  Apportion- 
ment. —  State  V.  Bryan,  26  Oregon  502.  See 
also  Posey  v.  Corydon  Public  School,  (Ky. 
1897)  .38  S.  W.  Rep.  1063;  Louisville  School 
Board  z\  Superintendent  of  Public  Instruction, 
102   Ky.   394. 

Apportionment  to  City  Schools.  —  Posey  v. 
25  C.  of  L. — 5 


Corydon  Public  School,  (Ky.  1897)  38  S.  W. 
Rep.  1063  ;  Louisville  School  Board  v.  Superin- 
tendent of  Public  Instruction,  102  Ky.  394; 
Wester  v.  Oge,  (Tex.  Civ.  App.  1902)  68  S.  W. 
Rep.  1005. 

Apportionment  of  City  School  Funds  Among 
Borough  School  Boards.  —  School  Board  v.  Board 
of  Education,  157  N.  Y.  566. 

Appropriation  for  Equal  Distribution  Among 
Colored  Schools. —  Board  of  Public  Education  v. 
Griffin,  o  Houst.  (Del.)  334. 

Statutory  Provision  for  Apportionment  of  Rail- 
road Tax  Between  White  and  Colored  Schools.  — 
Hickman  College  v.  Colored  Common  School 
Dist.,  (Ky.  1 90 1)  65  S.  W.  Rep.  20,  23  Ky.  L. 
Rep.  1271  ;  Harrodsburg  Educational  Dist.  No. 
28  V.  Colored  School  Dist.  No.  i,  105  Ky.  675. 
But  this  statute  has  been  held  to  have  no  ap- 
plication to  any  other  than  railroad  corpora- 
tions. Board  of  Education  v.  Colored  School 
Di.st  Xo.  I.  (Ky.  1896)  35  S.  W.  Rep.  549- 

Apportionment  of  School  Fund  According  to 
Proportion  Paid  by  Whites  and  Blacks  Respectively. 
—  See  Board  of  Education  v.  Colored  School 
Dist.  No.  I,  (Ky.  1S96)  35  S.  W.  Rep.  549.  As 
to  the  constitutionality  of  such  statutory  pro- 
vision, see  tlie  title  Civil  Rights,  vol.  6,  pp. 
^?i.  84. 

Forfeiture  of  Share  of  Funds  by  Failure  to 
Maintain  Schools. —  Deckerville  High  School 
Dist.  V.  School  Dist.  No.  3,  (Mich.  1902)  90  N. 
W.  Rep.  1064,  9  Detroit  Leg.  N.  282;  Joint 
School  Dist.  No.  8  v.  School  Dist.  No.  5,  92 
Wis.  608.  Compare  School  Dist.  v.  Morrill.  59 
N.  H.  367. 

Withholding  Share  for  Failure  of  District  to 
Obey  Decision  of  State  Superintendent.  —  People 
z.  Allen.  (Supm.  Ct.  Spec.  T. )  19  Mipc.  (N.  Y.) 
.164. 

Provision  for  Return  of  Unexpended  Funds  to 
County  Treasurer. —  State  z\  McClelland,  138 
Ind.  305;  Pfau  z\  State.  148  Ind.  539. 

Mandamus  to  Compel  Distribution. —  State  v. 
Staub,  61  Conn.  553  :  Moiles  z'.  Watson,  60  Mich. 
415  :  Board  of  Education  v.  Sheridan.  42  N.  J. 
L.  64.  Con: pare  People  r.  Town  Auditors,  126 
N.  Y.  5-8. 

Mandamus  to  Compel  Apportionment  Denied  in 
Absence  of  Showing  of  Fund  on  Hand. —  State  v. 
Bryan.  26  Orcuon  502. 

injunction  Apainst  Expenditure  of  Fund  for 
School  Purposes  in  Advance  of  General  Appropria- 
tion. -     Maloy  :■.  Mailgct.  47  Ind.  241. 

Apportionment  by  County  Superintendent.  — 
Kennedy  z\  Miller,  07  Cal.  429. 

Apportionment  by  Commissioner's  Court  Held 
Unauthorized.  —  Wester  ;■.  Oge,  (Tex.  Civ.  App. 
loo.i)  nH  S,  W.  Rep.  1005. 

Nonliability  of  County  for  Failure  of  Superin- 
tendent to  Make  Apportionment.  —  Webb  County 
z\  School  Trustees.  05  Tex.  131. 

Nonliability  of  County  Superintendent  to  Suit 
by  District  for  Funds  Wrongfully  Transferred  to 
Unappropriated  Fund. —  ( Iridley  School  Di-t.  : . 
Stout,  i.u  Cal.  502. 

Nonliability  of  Town  in  Action  of  Assumpsit  for 
Failure  of  Selectmen  to  Appoi-tion. —  School  Dist. 
No.  I  v.  Bridport,  63  Vt.  383. 
65  Volume  XXV. 


School  Funds. 


SCHOOLS. 


Treasurer. 


tions  it  has  been  held  that  where  there  has  been  apportioned  to  a  particular 
school  district  less  than  its  share  of  the  fund,  it  is  entitled  to  have  this  made 
good  by  deducting  in  the  next  apportionment  the  amount  of  the  deficit  from 
the  amounts  which  would  otherwise  be  apj^ortioned  to  those  districts  which 
have  received  the  excess.* 

4.  IriYestment.  —  Under  the  statutes  and  constitutions  of  the  different 
states  provision  is  made  for  the  investment  of  the  school  funds  by  designated 
officers  under  prescribed  limitations.* 

Constitutional  Limitations  as  to  Character  of  Investment  and  Security.  —  Sometimes  the 
state  constitution  imposes  certain  limitations  upon  the  character  of  the  invest- 
ment, as  by  directing  that  the  school  fund  shall  be  invested  or  loaned  only  on 
certain  securities  or  by  prohibiting  its  transfer  to  other  state  funds  by  way  of 
loan,  and  a  statute  which  attempts  to  authorize  a  use  of  the  funds  in  violation 
of  such  constitutional  provision  is  void.^  So,  under  a  constitutional  require- 
ment that  the  school  funds  shall  be  securely  and  profitably  invested,  it  has 
been  held  that  a  loan  of  a  school  fund  to  another  fund  to  be  repaid  out  of 
contingent  or  doubtful  future  revenues  is  unconstitutional.* 

6.  Treasurer.  —  Provision  is  generally  made  by  statute  for  a  treasurer  of  a 
school  district,  or  some  other  political  division,  who  shall  act  as  the  depositary 
and  custodian  of  the  school  funds. ^     As  a  general  rule  it  is  the  duty  of  the 


1.  Andrus  v.  Parish  Board  of  Directors,  io8 
La.  386  ;  Louisville  School  Board  v.  McChesney, 
(Ky.  1900)  58  S.  W.  Rep.  4-'7.  See  also  State 
V.  Fay,  36  La.  Ann.  241. 

2.  Investment  of  School  Funds. —  Bush  v. 
Shipman,  5  111.  186;  Hoard  of  Trustees  v.  Davi- 
son, 65  111.  124;  School  Trustees  v.  Southard, 
31  111.  -App.  359;  Gaines  v.  Paris,  39  Miss.  403; 
Lindsey  v.  Marshall,  12  Smed.  &  M.  (Miss.) 
587;  Montgomery  County  7'.  Auchley,  103  Mo. 
492  ;  Grant  : .  Huston,  105  Mo.  97  ;  Knox  County 
-'.  Goggin.  io5  Mo.  i8j;  Kubli  v.  Martin,  5 
Oregon  436. 

School  Fund  Mortgages  and  Mortgage  Notes.  — 
State  f.  State  Bank,  5  Ind.  353 ;  Key  t\ 
Ostrander,  29  Ind.  i  ;  State  v.  Levi,  99  Ind.  77 
(distinguishing  Ware  v.  State,  74  Ind.  181); 
Stockwell  V.  State,  loi  Ind.  i  ;  Clark  z>.  State, 
109  Ind.  388;  Hamilton  County  v.  State,  122 
Ind-  33i  '<  Lopp  z<.  Woodward,  i  Ind.  App.  105  ; 
Gaines  v.  Paris,  39  Miss.  403  :  Benton  County 
V.  Morgan,  163  Mo.  661  ;  Hurt  v.  K'.lly,  43  Mo. 
238 ;  American  Dock,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Public  School 
Trustees,  35  N.  J.  Eq.  181  ;  Pennoyer  ?-.  Willis, 
(Oregon  1893)  32  Pac.  Rep.  57;  Lawrey  v. 
Sterling:,  41   Oregon  518. 

Validity  of  Note  Unsecured  by  Mortgage. — 
Edwards  f.  School  Trustees.  30  111.  App.  528; 
Scotten  V.  State,  51  Ind.  .tj:  I.ittlcwort  v.  Davis, 
50  Miss.  403.  And  see  Bremer  County  v.  Bar- 
rick,  18  Iowa  390;  Mann  v.  Best,  62  Mo.  491; 
Montgomery  County  z\  Auchley,  103  Mo.  492. 

Statutes  Requiring  Loans  at  Designated  Rate  of 
Interest.  —  Shoemaker  i\  SiTiitli.  37  Ind.  122; 
Gilliford  f.  Allegheny  City  School  Dist.,  ir,5 
Pa.  St.  631.  See  also  Fulwiler  v.  Zern,  38  Ind. 
208;  Veal  r.  Chariton  County  Ct.,  15  Mo.  412. 

Board  of  Commissioners  Empowered  to  Invest 
Funds  in  Hands  of  State  Treasurer.  —  State  v. 
Bartley.  50  Xeb.  20S. 

Investment  by  County  Commissioner's  Court 
Held  Invalid.  —  Boydston  v.  Rockwall  Countv. 
86  Tex.  234. 

Power  of  State  Land  Board  to  Loan  Irreducible 
School     Fund. —  State     -■.     Fitzpatrick,      (Idaho 


1897)  51  Pac.  Rep.  112;  Lawrey  v.  Sterling,  41 
Oregon   518. 

Liability  of  Board  or  Officer  for  Insecure  Invest- 
ment. —  People  V.  Haines,  10  111.  528;  Greene 
County  V.  Bledsoe,  13  111.  267;  Board  of  Trus- 
tees z'.  Baker,  34  111.  App.  620 ;  Littlewort  v. 
Davis,  so  Miss.  403.  See  also  Greene  County 
z'.  Smith,  4  111.  227  ;  State  v.  Newby,  7  Blackf. 
(Ind.)   330. 

Liability  of  Counties  for  School  Funds  Intrusted 
to  Them, —  Lopp  v.  Woodward,  i  Ind.  Ai)p. 
i.\-,  ;    Howard  County  v.  State,   120   Ind.  j8j. 

3.  Constitutional  Provision  Prohibiting  Invest- 
ment Except  in  Designated  Government  or  Public 
Securities.—  Stale  v.  State  Bank,  45  Mo.  528; 
In  re  School  Fund,  15  Neb.  684;  State  v.  Bart- 
ley, 39  Neb.  353  ;  Boydston  v.  Rockwall  County, 
86  Tex.  234;  State  z\  Grimes,  7  Wash.  270; 
State  7'.  "^'oung,  21  ^^^^sh.  391. 

Prohibition  of  Loan  to  Other  Funds.  —  State  v. 
Bartky.  41  Xeb.  277.  See  also  Stale  :•.  Board 
of  Com'rs.  4  Kan.  j6i. 

Statute  Limiting  Amount  of  Loan  to  Any  One 
Party.  —  State  7'.  State  Bank,  5  Ind.  353.  See 
also  Deming  7'.  State,  23  Ind.  416:  Webb  v. 
Moore,  25  Ind.  4;  Jones  7'.  Hopkins,  26  Ind. 
450  ;   Ferris  7'.  Cravens,  65    Ind.  262. 

4.  /"  'V  Loan  of  School  Fund,   18  Colo.    195. 

5.  District  Treasurer.  —  Kennedy  v.  Inde- 
pendent School  Dist.,  48  Iowa  189:  Carpenter  v. 
District  Tp.,  58  Iowa  335;  School  Dist.  Xo.  31 
7'.  Roach.  43  Minn.  495  ;  Rockwood  7'.  School 
Dist..  70  X.  H.  38S:  Edson  7'.  Hayden.  18  Wis. 
627. 

Township  Treasurer.  —  State  v.  May,  22  Ark. 
445.  People  7'.  Yeazel.  84  111.  539;  Adams  v. 
State,  82  111.  132:  Lovingston  v.  Board  of  Trus- 
tees, 99  111.  564 ;  Prairie  School  Tp.  v.  Haseleu, 
3  X.  Dak.  328. 

City  Treasurer  as  Custodian  of  Fund.  —  Board 
of  Education  v.  Eshelbv,  9  Ohio  Dec.  214,  6 
Ohio  N.  P.  117. 

County  Treasurer  of  County  School  Funds.  — 
Clarke  :•.  Levy,  45  Ga.  498  ;  Culberson  v.  Gilmer 
Bank,  20  Tex.  Civ.  App.  565  ;  Webb  County  v. 
Volume  XXV. 


School  ^funds. 


SCHOOLS—  SCIENCE. 


Deiiuitiou. 


treasurer  to  receive  the  school  funds  when  collected,  pay  them  out  upon 
orders  from  the  proper  authority,  and  turn  over  any  balance  in  his  hands  to 
his  successor. ' 

Treasurer's  Bond.  —  The  treasurer  is  usually  required  to  furnish  a  bond  with 
adequate  security  for  the  faithful  performance  of  his  duties,'"^  and  both  he  and 
his  sureties  will  be  liable  thereon  for  any  loss  resulting  to  tlie  fund  through 
his  default  or  neglect.-* 

6.  School  Warrants.  —  A  full  discussion  of  school  warrants  and  orders  will 
be  found  elsewhere  in  this  work.* 


SCIENCE  —  SCIENTIFIC.     (See  also  the  title  Expert  and  Opinion  Evi- 
dence, vol.    12,    p.  414.) —  Science    in    a    broad    sense    is   knowledge;  "the 


School  Trustees,  95  Tex.  131.  See  also  District 
Tp.  V.  Espeset,  75  Iowa  500. 

Right  to  Hold  Office  until  Qualification  of  Suc- 
cessor. —  Stall-  :■.   Xol)les,    109    Wis.   jiu. 

Treasurer  of  District  Board  Held  Removable  at 
Pleasure  of  Board.  —  Holbrook  v.  School  Trus- 
tees, 22  III.  539;  Com.  V.  Sulzner,  198  Pa.  St. 
502. 

Official  Action  of  Board  Held  Necessary  to  Va- 
cate Office  of  Treasurer.  —  State  :•.  School  Dist. 
.;.,,  22  Xch.  48. 

Compensation  of  Treasurer.  —  Lovingston  v. 
Board  of  Trustees,  99  111.  564. 

1.  Lovingston  v.  Board  of  Trustees,  99  III. 
564;  School  Dist.  No.  2  z'.  Telibetts,  67  Me.  239. 

Mandamus  to  Compel  Deposit  in  Certain  Bank. 
—  Board  of  ]i<hication  ?'.  Runnels,  57  Mich.  46. 

2.  Bond  Required  of  Treasurer.  —  Bartlett  z'. 
Board  of  Education,  59  111.  364 ;  Independent 
School  Dist.  V.  Hubbard,  no  lovva  58;  Carpen- 
ter V.  Titus,  :^^ji  Kan.  7  ;  Horneinan  z\  Harlan, 
47  Kan.  413;  State  v.  Teal,  72  Minn.  t,7.  See 
State  V.  Matheny,   7   Kan.  327. 

3.  Liability  on  Bond.  —  School  Trustees  v. 
Stokes,  3  111.  App.  267;  Independent  School 
District  c'.  McDonald,  39  Iowa  564  ;  Lindsey  v. 
Marshall,   12  Snied.  &  M.   (Miss.)    587. 

Sureties  on  Bond  Given  on  First  Term  Not  Liable 
on  Failure  of  Treasurer  to  Give  Bond  on  Second 
Election. —  Riddel  v.  School  Dist.  No.  y2.  15 
Kan.   168. 

Liability  for  Misapplication  or  Misappropriation 
of  Fund.  — School  Trustees  7\  Smith,  88  111.   181. 

And  it  has  been  held  that  a  treasurer  who  is 
also  a  school  director  and  voted  in  favor  of  a 
misapplication  cannot  shield  himself  from  lia- 
bility under  the  warrant  of  the  board  of  direct- 
ors.    Dickinson  Tp.  v.  Linn,  36  Pa.  St.  431. 

The  mere  fact  that  there  was  money  in  the 
hands  of  the  treasurer  at  one  time  will  not  be 
sufficient  to  sustain  an  action  against  him,  in 
default  of  some  proof  of  delinquency  on  his 
part.  School  Dist.  No.  2  v.  Tebbetts,  67  Me. 
239. 

Liability  for  Receipt  of  Unauthorized  Medium  of 
Payment.  —  Lovingston  v.  Board  of  Trustees,  99 
111.  564. 

In  Jones  v.  Wright,  34  Mich.  371,  it  was  held 
that  if  a  treasurer  chooses  to  receive  anything 
in  payment  the  law  has  not  authorized  him  to 
receive,  he  must  make  good  the  amount  and 
mandanuis  will  lie  to  compel  him  to  do  so. 

Failure  to  Pay  Over  Money  to  Successor.  — 
Hiatt  V.  State,  no  Ind.  472  ;  Snyder  v.  Board  of 
Education,  16  Kan.  542.  See  also  State  v.  May, 
22  Ark.  445  ;  Humiston  v.  School  Trustees,  7 
111.  App.  122. 


.■\nd  it  has  even  been  held,  in  an  action  by  the 
incoming  treasurer,  on  his  predecessor's  bond, 
that  the  former  cannot  be  compelled  to  receive 
notes  taken  upon  an  unauthorized  loan  of  school 
funds,  although  the  loan  was  made  at  the  di- 
rection of  the  school  trustees.  Hiatt  z'.  State, 
1 10  Ind.  472. 

On  the  other  hand,  it  has  been  held  that 
where  a  treasurer  received  coupons  from  a 
county  collector  instead  of  money,  with  the  con- 
sent of  the  directors,  and  transferred  the  cou- 
pons to  his  successor  in  office,  the  directors  will 
lie  estopped  by  their  acts  in  an  action  on  his 
bond  from  preferring  any  claim  against  the 
treasurer  for  any  loss  sustained  by  the  transac- 
tion.     Humiston  v.  School  Trustees,  7  111.  App. 

Liability  for  Loss  Sustained  by  Releasing  Mort- 
gage Without  Proper  Order.  —  Board  of  Trustees 
;•.  iMisLiilKinier.  78  111.  22.  See  Humiston  v. 
School  Trustees,  7  111.  Ajip.  122. 

Liability  for  Paying  Out  Funds  Without  Order. 
—  Snyder  f.  Board  of  I-'.ducation,  16  Kan.  542; 
School  Dist.  No.  4  '••  Baier.  08  W  is.  22. 

Unauthorized  Payment  of  Judgment  Out  of  Funds 
Applicable  to  Other  Specific  Purposes.  —  School 
Dist.   No.  31   f.  Roach.  4,^   Minn.  495. 

Liability  for  Interest  Received  by  Treasurer  on 
Funds  in  His  Hands.  —  Hadley  v.  State,  66  Ind. 
271. 

Failure  to  Present  Claim  Against  Decedent's 
Estate  Without  Order.  —  McHaney  •:■.  School 
Trustees.  6S  111.  140. 

Liability  for  Loss  of  School  Funds.  -  -  See  gen- 
erally on  this  question  the  title  PiiBLic  Offi- 
cers, vol.  22,  p.  374-  And  see  School  Dist.  v. 
Carson,   10  K.ia.  238. 

Conclusiveness  of  Treasurer's  Books  and  Final 
Report  Against  Treasurer.  —  I.(Migan  ;■.  Taylor, 
31  111.  .App.  203.  affiriiu-d  130  111.  412.  But  see 
Saville  V.  School  Dist.  No.  27.  22  Kan.  529. 

But  it  has  been  held  that  if  the  funds  in  the 
treasurer's  hands  were  properly  administered 
and  reached  their  proper  destination,  as  evi- 
denced in  the  settlement  between  him  and  the 
school  board,  he  is  entitled  to  credit  for  the 
amounts  legally  paid  out  by  him,  although  his 
books  may  be  irre.gular  in  their  arrangements. 
Parish  School  Board  v.  Packwood,  42  La.  Ann. 
468. 

Inadmissibility  of  Private  Accounts  in  Treas- 
urer's Favor  in  Absence  of  Proof  of  Loss  or  Destruc- 
tion of  Official  Record  Required  by  Statute.  — 
Hinton  T'.  School   Dist..  12  Kan.  573. 

4.    See    the    title    W.vkrants.      And    see    the 

titles     M.\NDAMUS,     vol.     19.     p.     798;     MUNICIP.^L 

Sf.curities,  vol.  21,  p.  13. 
•  Volume  XXV. 


HOW  TO   USE   THE   SUPPLEMENT. 


The  titles  of  the  articles  and  defined  words  and  phrases  are  repeated  in 
the  order  in  which  they  are  to  be  found  in  the  Amp:rican  and  English 
Encyclopaedia  of  Law,  Second  Edition.  At  the  top  of  each  page  are 
given  the  name  of  the  subject  and  the  pages  thereof  which  are  supplemented 
by  reference  to  and  statement  of  the  late  cases.     Thus  : 

961-968  AGE.VCV  Vol.  I. 

at  the  Lop  oi  a  page  signifies  that  pages  956  to  961  of  tiie  article  "  Agency  ' 
in  the  first  volume  of  the  Second  Edition  are  supplemented. 

The  large  heavy-faced  figures  refer  to  the  pages  of  the  volume  of  the 
Second  Edition.  The  small  figure  following  the  page  number  in  the  notes 
refers  to  the  original  note  num.bered  by  that  same  figure  on  that  page.  Thus, 
a  note  numbered  955.  2.,  w  ith  cases  cited,  indicates  that  those  cases  support 
the  proposition  to  which  the  cases  in  note  2  on  page  955  were  cited. 

The  omission  of  a  title  that  appeared  in  the  Second  Edition  implies  that 
no  new  cases  on  that  subject  have  been  found. 

Mr.  Henry  H  Van  Dyck  is  entitled  to  special  mention  for  his  labors  in 
the  preparation  of  this  volume. 


Vol.  XXV. 


SA  WMILL    -  SCHOOLS. 


lis 


1.     SAWMILL.       Sec  note  i. 

SCAFFOLDING.  —  See  note  3. 
a.     SCHEDULE.  -  See  note  3. 
a.     SCHOOLHOUSE.  —  See  note  3. 

1.  1.  A  Sawmill  Is  a  Manufacturing  Estab- 

lisliment  within  the  meaning  of  a  statute  giving 
to  laborers  in  such  establishments  a  lien  for 
wages  prior  to  that  of  mortgages.  Graham  v. 
Magann   Fawke  Lumber  Co.,    ii8  Ky.   192. 

Planing-  Mill  or  Sash  and  Door  Factory  Not 
Sawmill. — In    /<■    Ciosch,    121    Fed.    Rep.    604. 

3.  Scaffolding.  —  Elwin  z'.  Woo Jw-ard,  ( 1903) 
I  K.  B.  838;  Veazey  v.  Chattle,  (1902)  i  K.  B. 
494- 

2.  3.     Schedule   Equivalent   to   Inventory.  — 


Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  People,  217  111.  169. 
citing  25  Am.  and  Eng.  Encyc.  of  Law  (2d 
ed.)   2. 

The  Term  "  Schedule  "  Implies  Something  Writ- 
ten, and  when  used  with  reference  to  a  railroad 
train  imports  a  rule  rather  than  a  particular 
direction  or  agreement.  Draper  v.  Evansville, 
etc.,   R.   Co.,   (Ind.    1905)   74  N.   E.   Rep.  889. 

3.  3.  High  School  Held  to  Be  a  Schoolhouse. 
—  Carling  v.  Jersey  City,  71  N.  J.  L.  154. 


SCHOOLS. 

By  H.  Gannaway. 

7.  L  Definitions.  —  See  note  i. 

8.  Common  or  Public  Schools.  —  See  notes  2,  3,  4,  5,  6. 

II.  Teacher  —  1.  Qualification   and  Certificate  —  a.  In  General. — 
See  note  7. 

9.  See  note  i. 

b.  Necessity  of  Certificate  to  Validity  of  Contract— (i) 
/;/  General.  —  See  note  4. 

10.  (3)  Effect  of  Subsequent  Issuance  of  Certificate.  —  See  notes  3,  4. 

11.  d.  Mandamus  to  Compel  Issuance  of  Certificate.  —  See  note  6. 
13.    /.  REVOC.vrioN  of  License.  — See  note  3. 

2.  Contract  —  a.  In  General.  —  See  note  8. 


7.  1.  An  Association  Where  Begalar  Gym- 
nastic Exercises  Are  Taught,  and  a  teacher  is 
constantly  employed,  is  an  institution  of  learn- 
ing, within  the  constitutional  meaning  of  the 
term.  German  Gymnastic  Assoc,  v.  Louisville, 
117   Ky.  958. 

5.  2.  School  Maintained  by  Orphan  Asylum 
Society  Not  Common  School. —  Sargent  v.  Board 
of   Education.    117    X.   Y.   317. 

3.  Teaching  Single  Pupil  at  Home  Held  to  Be 
Keeping  Private  School.  —  State  r.  Peterman. 
2,2   Ind.  .Vpp.  665. 

4.  A  Manual  Training  and  Polytechnic  School 
is  not  a  public  school.  State  v.  Schauss,  2^ 
Ohio  Cir.  Ct.  283. 

6.  Fiske  r.    Huntington.    179    Mass.    571. 

6.  "  Common  Schools,"  Within  the  Kansas  Con- 
stitution, arc  free  common  schools.  Board  of 
Education  :.  Dick,  (Kan.  1904)  78  Pac.  Rc). 
812. 

7.  Statutory  Requirement  of  Certificate  of  Quali- 
fication.—  Arnold  f.  State,  71  Ark.  367:  Mc- 
Closkey  t'.  School  Dist.  No.  5,  134  Mich.  235. 
10  Detroit  Leg.  N.  442:  Crabb  v.  School  Dist. 
No.  I.  93  Mo.  App.  254.  See  also  Snell  v. 
Glasgow.  90  Minn.   iii. 

Different  Qualifications  for  Men  and  Women  May 
Be  Required  by  Board  of  Education.  —  Schlivin- 
ski  f.  Maxwell.  80  X.  Y.  App.  Div.  313.  ap- 
peal dismissed  176  N.  Y.  568. 

Wh0re  Two  of  Three  Examiners  Decided  that  a 


Teacher  Had  Passed  an  examination,  she  was 
held  to  be  entitled  to  a  certificate.  Northing- 
ton  V.   Sublette,    114   Ky.   yz. 

9.  1.  But  in  Michigan.  —  The  case  of  Hale 
r.  Risley,  69  Mich.  599,  cited  in  the  original 
note  has  apparently  been  overruled.  See  Mc- 
Closkey  r.  School  Dist.  No.  5,  134  Mich.  235, 
10  Detroit  Leg.  N.  442. 

4.  No  Recovery  on  Contract  of  Unlicensed 
Teacher.  —  Arnold  v.  State,  71  Ark.  367;  Mc- 
Closkey  v.  School  Dist.  No.  5,  134  Mich.  235. 
10  Detroit  Leg.  N.  442. 

1 0.  3.  Contract  Held  Not  Validated  by  Subse- 
quent Issuance  of  Certificate.  —  McCIoskey  v. 
School  Dist.  \o.  5,  134  Mich.  235.  10  Detroit 
Leg.  N.  442. 

4.  Crabb  v.  School  District  No.  i,  93  Mo. 
App.   254. 

11.  6.  Mandamus  to  Compel  Issuance  of  Certifi- 
cate. —  Xorthington   V.    Sublette,    114    Ky.    72. 

12.  3.  Revocation  of  Teacher's  License.— 
Bowman  v.  Ray,  80  S.  W.  Rep.  516,  25  Ky.  L. 
Rep.    2131. 

8.  Authority  to  Contract  with  Teachers.  — 
Denman  v.  Webster,  (Cal.  1902)  70  Pac.  Rep. 
1063  ;  Ewin  V.  Independent  School  Dist.  No.  8, 
10  Idaho  102;  Harris  v.  Kill,  108  111.  App.  305; 
Mingo  V.  Colored  School  Dist.  A,  113  Ky.  475; 
Scott  V.  Pendley,  114  Ky.  606;  Cowley  v. 
School  Dist.  No.  3,  130  Mich.  634;  Young  v. 
Fountain   Inn   Graded   School,   64   S.   Car.    131  • 


13-16 


SCHOOLS. 


Vol.  XXV. 


13.  See  note  i. 

b.  Formal  Requisites  —  (i)  In  General.  —  See  note  2. 

14.  (2)  Siaiutes  Requiring  Contracts  in  Writing.  —  See  note  i. 

c.  Liability  of  Successors  in  Office.  —  See  notes  5,  6,  7. 

15.  d.  Contract  with  De  Facto  Officers.  —  See  note  3. 

3.  Compensation  —  a.  Performanxe  of  Duties  as  Prerequisite 
TO  Compensation,  — See  note  5. 

b.  Necessity    of    Stipulation    as    to    Compensation.  —  See 
notes  7,  8. 

16.  c.  Circumstances  to  Be  Considered  in  Reduction  —  (i)  Closing 
School  on  Account  of  Prevalence  of  Epidemic.  —  See  note  2. 

d.  Mandamus  to  Compel  Payment  of  Salary.  —  See  note  8. 

e.  Pensions.  —  See  note  9. 

4,  Termination  of  Employment  —  a.   Discharge  — (i)  Discharge  for 
Good  Cause.  —  See  notes  10,  11. 


Hemingway  f.  Joint  School  Dist.  No.  i,  ii8 
Wis.   294. 

Right  to  Employ  Member  of  Religioui  Order.  — 
Sargent  -'.  Board  of  Education,  76  N.  Y.  App. 
Div.   5S8,   affirmed   177   N.   Y.   317. 

Employment  of  Relative  of  School  Director  Pro- 
hibited in  Absence  of  Petition.  —  Holt  v.  Wat- 
son,  71   Ark.  87. 

Contract  to  Employ  "Wife  of  Trustee  Void  as 
Against  Public  Policy.  —  Nuckols  v.  Lyle,  8 
Idaho  589. 

Employment  of  Teachers  for  Boys  in  Orphan 
Asylum. —  See  Sargent  v.  Board  of  Education, 
177   N.  Y.   317. 

Whether  More  Women  Teachers  than  Men  Shall 
Be  Appointed  is  in  the  discretion  of  the  board. 
Schlivinski  v.  Maxwell,  80  N.  Y.  App.  Div. 
J 13,  appeal  dismissed    176  N.  Y.  568. 

Contract  Void  in  Part.  —  See  Crabb  v.  School 
Dist.  No.  I,  93  Mo.  App.  254. 

13.  \.  Oil  School  Tp.  V.  Marting,  27  Ind. 
App.  525. 

2.  Formal  Requisites  under  Statutes.  —  Lee  v. 
York  School  Tp.,  163  Ind.  339;  Taylor  v. 
School  Town,  33  Ind.  App.  675 ;  Shepherd  v. 
Gambill,    75    S.    W.    Rep.   223,    25    Ky.   L.    Rep. 

Signing  by  Majority  of  Trustees  Held  SuflBlcient. 
—  See  Mingo  v.  Colored  School  Dist.  A,  113 
Ky.  475- 

Construction  of  Contract  —  Time  of  Teaching.  — 
See  Crabb  f.  School  Dist.  No.  i,  93  Mo.  App. 
254. 

14.  1.  Statutes  Requiring  Contracts  to  Be  in 
Writingr.  —  Lee  v.  York  School  Tp.,  163  Ind. 
330  :  Taylor  v.  School  Town,  2i  Ind.  App.  675, 
holding  further  that  the  contract  may  consist 
of  more  than  one  instrument. 

5.  Contracts  Binding  on  Succeeding  Boards.  — 
Polk  V.  Board  of  I'.ducation.  140  Cal.  xvii.  74 
Pac.  Rep.  47;  Hancock  v.  Board  of  Education, 
i.;o  Cal.  554.  But  see  Board  of  Education  v. 
Walker,  71   Ohio  St.  169. 

6.  TTnder  Statute.  —  See  Williams  v.  Bagnelle, 
T '8  Cal.  699:  Norton  v.  Wilkes.  93  Minn.  411  : 
Hemingway  v.  Joint  School  Dist.  No.  i,  iiS 
Wis.   204. 

7.  Board  Cannot  Employ  Teacher  for  Period 
Beyond  Term  of  Office  of  Every  Member.  —  Board 
of   Education   t'.   Walker,   71    Ohio   St.    169. 

15.  3.  Contract,  with  De  Facto  Officers.— 
Polk  V.   Board  of  Education,    140  Cal.  xvii,   71 


Pac.  Rep.  47  ;  Hancock  v.  Board  of  Education, 
140  Cal.  554;  Noble  v.  White,  77  S.  W.  Rep. 
678,  25   Ky.  L.  Rep.   1282. 

5.  Compensation.  —  Marquissee  v.  School 
Dist.  No.  64,   (Neb.   1903)   97  N.  W.  Rep.  324. 

Failure  for  Good  Reason  to  Serve  Entire  Term. 

—  See  Williams  v.  Bagnelle.  138  Cal.  699  (con- 
tract by  directors  for  longer  term  actually 
held).  Compare  Oakes  f.  School  Dist.  No.  3, 
98  Mo.  App.  163  (unauthorized  dismissal  by 
board). 

One  Who  Did  Not  Teach  Because  Enjoined 
at  suit  of  one  not  having  a  valid  contract  can- 
not recover  compensation,  his  remedy  being 
upon  the  injunction  bond.  Shepherd  v.  Gam- 
bill,  73   S.  W.  Rep.  223,  25  Ky.  L.  Rep.  333. 

Deduction  for  Absence  Caused  by  Illness  Valid. 

—  Murphy  :■.  Board  of  Education.  ( Supm.  Ct. 
Tr.  T.)  38  Misc.  (N.  Y.)  706,  afErmed  76  N. 
Y.  App.    Div.  620. 

Where  Tv/o  Grades  Were  Consolidated  by  the 
school  board  after  a  teacher's  contract  had 
been  made  it  was  held  that  the  teacher  could 
not  refuse  to  teach  the  consolidated  grade  and 
still  recover  salary,  the  contract  being  silent  as 
to  the  particular  service  to  be  rendered.  Mar- 
quissee V.  School  Dist.  No.  64,  (Neb.  1903)  97 
N.  W.  Rep.  324. 

7.  Statute  Requiring  Contract  to  Fix  Compensa- 
tion.—  Tavlor  r.  School  Town,  33  Ind.  App. 
675. 

8.  Recovery  on  Quantum  Meruit.  —  Compare 
Lee  V.  York  School  Tp.,  163  Ind.  339. 

16.  2.  Closing  School  on  Account  of  Epidemic 
No  Ground  for  Deduction.  —  Contra  (though 
recognizing  the  general  rule)  where  the  school 
was  closed  by  the  board  of  health,  without 
voluntary  action  of  the  school  officers.  School 
Dist.  No.  16  V.  Howard,  (Neb.  1904)  98  N.  W. 
Rep.  666. 

8.  See  State  7-.  McQuade,  36  Wash.  579. 

9.  Pensioning  Teachers  —  Statute  Unconstitu- 
tional.—  See  Hibbard  v.  State,  65  Ohio  St. 
574,  64  N.   E.  Rep.  109. 

10.  Statutory  Authority  to  Discharge  for  Cause. 

—  Stockton  Z-.  Board  of  Education,  145  Cal. 
246  :  Ewin  v.  Independent  School  Dist.  No.  8, 
10  Idaho  102;  Guilford  School  Tp.  t'.  Roberts, 
2^  Ind.  App.  355  ;  Bowman  v.  Ray,  80  S.  W. 
Rep.  516,  25  Ky.  L.  Rep.  21 31  ;  People  v. 
Board  of  Education,  174  N.  Y.  169;  Hall- 
Moody  Institute  v.  Copass,  108  Tenn.  582, 


Vol.  XXV. 


SCHOOLS. 


ir  20 


17.  See  notes  i,  2. 

(2)  Discharge    Without  Cause  —  (a)  in  General.  — Sec   notes  4,  5,  6,  7. 
(b)   Beservation  of  Right  to  Discharge  at  Pleasure.     -  See  note  8. 

18.  See  note  1. 

(3)  Notice  and  Hearing.  —  See  note  2. 

(4)  By  Whom  Discharge  May  Be  Made  —  (ai  in  General.  —  See  note  4. 

19.  Sec  note  1. 

(5)  Remedies  for   Wrongful  Discharge — (^a)   Action  for  Damages  —  aa.  In 
General.  —  See  note  6. 

20.  bb.  Meas-jke  uf  Damages.  —  See  note  2. 
(b)  Mandamus.  —  See  notes  8,  9. 


16.  11.  Board  of  Education  v.  Stotlar,  95 
111.  App.  250  ;  Robinson  v.  School  Directors,  96 
111.  App.  604. 

Rescission  for  Fraudulent  Representation.  —  In 
New  York  a  by-law  of  a  board  of  education 
providing  that  if  a  woman  teacher  marry  her 
place  shall  become  vacant,  has  been  held  to  he 
void.     People  v.   Maxwell,    177   N.   Y.  494. 

17.  1.  Dismissal  for  Incompetency  or  Neglect 
of  Duty.  —  School  Dist.  No.  18  v.  Davies,  69 
Kan.  162;  School  Dist.  No.  94  v.  Gautier,  13 
Okla.  194- 

Inability  to  Manage  Pupils.  —  Sec  Hall-Moody 
Institute  v.  Copass.  108  Tenn.  582,  wherein, 
under  the  circumstances,  the  discharge  was 
held  not  to  be  justified. 

2.  Discharge  for  Immoral  Conduct.  —  Bowman 
V.  Ray,  80  S.  W.  Kep.  516.  25  Ky.  L.  Rep. 
2131.  See  also  Hall-Moody  Institute  v.  Copass, 
:o8  Tenn.  582. 

4.  Discharge  Without  Cause.  —  Henry  School 
Tp.  V.  Meredith,  32  Ind.  App.  607  ;  Oakes  v. 
School  Dist.  No.  3,  98  Mo.  App.  163 ;  Crabb 
V.  School  Dist.  No.  i,  93  Mo.  App.  254;  Bogert 
V.  Board  of  Education,  (Supm.  Ct.  Tr.  T.) 
44  Misc.  (N.  Y.)  10,  affirmed  106  N.  Y.  App. 
Div.  56:  People  v.  Board  of  Education,  174 
N.  Y.   169   (under  statute). 

6.  Oil  School  Tp.  7'.  Marting,  27  Ind.  App. 
525  ;  Henry  School  Tp.  v.  Meredith,  ^,2  Ind. 
App.  607. 

6.  Appointment  of  Teacher  to  Smaller  Salary 
and  Lower  Grade  Equivalent  to  Removal.  —  Peo- 
ple V.  Board  of  Education,   174  N.  Y.   169. 

7.  Board  of  Education  v.  Stotlar,  95  111.  App. 
250 ;  Harris  r.  Kill,  108  111.  App.  305.  See 
also  Stockton  v.  Board  of  Education,  145  Cal. 
246. 

8.  Reservation  in  Contract  of  Right  to  Discharge 
at  Pleasure. —  School  Dist.  No.  94  v.  Gautier, 
13  Okla.   194. 

Contract  Held  Not  to  Justify  Removal  at 
Pleasurp.  —  See  Henry  School  Tp.  xk  Meredith, 
32  Ind.  App.  607  ;  School  Dist.  No.  94  t'. 
Gautier,   13  Okla.   104. 

IS.  1.  Under  Statute  Enumerating  Causes  of 
Dismissal,  —  See  Bowman  v.  Ray.  80  S.  W. 
Rep.  516.  25  Ky.  L.  Rep.  2131. 

The  stipulation  that  the  contract  of  employ- 
ment "  is  to  hold  GTOod  as  long  *  *  *  as  the 
trustee  sees  fit  "  does  not  authorize  the  trustee 
to  terminat^e  the  contract  without  cause. 
Henry  School  Tp.  v.  Meredith,  32  Ind.  App. 
607. 

2.  Necessity  of  Notice  and  Hearing.  —  Bow- 
man V.  Ray,  80  S.  W.  Rep.  516,  25  Ky.  L.  Rep. 


213 1  ;  People  v.  Board  of  Education,  174  N. 
Y.  169;  Bogert  v.  Board  of  Education,  (Supm. 
Ct.  Tr.  T.)  44  luisc.  (N.  Y.)  10,  affirmed  106 
N.  Y.  .A.pp.  Div.  56 ;  Murphy  v.  Maxwell, 
(Supm.  Ct.  Spec.  T.)   39  Misc.  (N.  Y.)    166. 

Under  the  General  School  Laws  of  New  York.  — 
The  rule  set  out  in  the  original  note  has  been 
changed  by  the  new  charter  of  New  York  city, 
so  far  as  applicable  to  that  city,  and  no  teacher 
may  be  removed  or  discharged  except  on 
charges  preferred  and  after  trial.  Murphy  v. 
Maxwell,  (Supm.  Ct.  Spec.  T.)  39  Misc.  (N. 
Y.)  166;  Bogert  v.  Board  of  Education,  (Supm. 
Ct.  Tr.  T.)  44  Misc.  (N.  Y.)  10,  affirmed  106 
N.  Y.  App.   Div.  56. 

Notice  Must  Be  Reasonably  Specific. —  Bowman 
V.  Ray,  80  S.  W.  Rep.  516,  25  Ky.  L.  Rep. 
2131. 

Trustees  of  Independent  School  Districts  in 
Idaho  may  dismiss  teachers  without  notice  and 
hearing.  Ewin  v.  Independent  School  Dist. 
No.   8,    10   Idaho    102. 

4.  Dismissal  Discretionary  with  Board  of  £du- 
cation. — -Board  of  Education  v.  Stotlar,  95  III. 
App.    250. 

Court  May  Review  Board's  Dismissal  of  Teacher. 

—  School  Dist.  No.  94  v.  Gautier,  13  Okla. 
194.  But  see  School  Dist.  No.  18  t'.  Davies, 
69  Kan.  162. 

19.  1.  School  Dist.  No.  18  v.  Davies,  69 
Kan.  162;  School  Dist.  No.  94  v.  Gautier,  13 
Okla.    194. 

6.  Action  for  Damages  for  Wrongful  Discharge. 

—  Hancock  7'.  Board  of  Education,  140  Cal. 
554;  Oil  School  Tp.  V.  Marting,  27  Ind.  App. 
525 ;  Hornbeck  v.  State,  33  Ind.  App.  609 ; 
Crabb  v.  School  Dist.  No.  i,  93  Mo.  App.  254; 
Bogert  7'.  Board  of  Education,  (Supm.  Ct.  Tr. 
T.)  44  Misc.  (N.  Y.)  10,  affirmed  106  N.  Y. 
App.   Div.   56. 

20.  2.  Measure  of  Damages.  —  Hancock  v. 
Board  of  Education,  140  Cal.  554  :  Oil  School 
Tp.  7'.  .Marting,  27  Ind.  .'Xpp.  5-25:  Crabb  v. 
School  Dist.  No.  i,  93  Mo.  .A-pp.  254;  Bogert 
r.  Board  of  Education,  (Supm.  Ct.  Tr.  T.) 
44  Misc.  (N.  Y.)  10,  affirmed  106  N.  Y.  App. 
Div.   56. 

8.  Teacher  Not  a  Public  Officer.  —  Murphy  v. 
Board  of  Education.  (Supm.  Ct.  Tr.  T.)  38 
Misc.  (N.  Y.)  706,  affirmed  76  N.  Y.  App.  Div. 
620. 

9.  Acceptance  of  Another  Position  No  Bar  to 
Mandamus.  —  OT^eary  v.  Board  of  Education, 
78  N.  Y.  -App.  Div.  475,  reversed  on  other 
grounds   174  N.   Y.   511. 

Where  the    Services    of    the   Teacher  Are  No 


761 


JlCC#-iji.*^»AV^**fc'ir»Vt:«''» 


31-95 


SCHOOLS. 


Vol.  XXV. 


21.    b.  Expiration  of  Term  of  Service  —  where  Duration  of  Tem  is  Fixed 
by  Contract.  —  Sec  notes  7,  8. 

Where  Duration  of  Contract  Is  Not  Specified.  —  See  note   10. 

92.  in.  Pupil  -    1.  Admission  —  a.  In  General.  —  See  note  2. 

b.  Residence.  —  See  note  3. 

c.  School  Age.  —  Sec  note  4. 

d.  Colored   Pupils  —  Eight  of  Admission  to  PubUc  Schools.  —  See  note  5. 

93.  ^.  Compulsory  Education  Acts. —  See  note  2. 

/.  Vaccination  as  a  Prerequisite  —  statutory  Eequirement.  —  See 


note  4. 
94 


In  Absence  of  Statute.  —  See  note  6. 
See  note  i. 
g.  Payment  of  Tuition.  —  See  note  2. 
2.  Pumshment  —  a.  Corporal    Punishment  —  (i)  In 
See  note  4. 

95.     (2)    Wanton  or  Malicious  Punishment.  —  See  note  i. 
(3)  Excessive  Punishment.  —  See  notes  2,  3,  4. 


General. 


Longer  Necessary,  mandamus  for  reinstatement 
will  not  lie.  Cusack  v.  Board  of  Education, 
174  N.  V.   139- 

21.  7.  Term  of  Service  in  Contract  Changed 
by  Secretary  —  Authority  Presumed.  —  School 
Dist.  No.  2;  V.  Wheat,  (.\rk.  1904^  78  S.  \V. 
Rep.  755. 

8.  Contract  for  Employment  of  Professor  One 
Year  Eeasonable.  —  State  Board  of  Agriculture 
V.  Meyers.  (Colo.  .App.  1904)  77  Pac.  Rep. 
372- 

10.  Board  Has  Discretion  to  Put  Teachers  on 
Eetired  List. —  Bates  v.  Board  of  Education.  139 
Cal.    145- 

»2'2.  2.  Statute  Excluding  Married  Persons.  — 
Weir  f.  State.   161    Ind.  435. 

A  School  Board  Has  No  Discretion  to  prohibit 
children  of  a  resident  from  attending  school. 
Slate  1.   Renter,  96  Mo.  App.  416. 

3.  Statutory  Eequirements  as  to  Eesidence  of 
Pupils. —  Board  of  Education  •<■.  Foster,  116 
Ky.  484.  See  also  Wrentham  v.  Fales,  185 
Mass.  539 :  School  Dist.  f.  Matherly,  90  Mo. 
App.  403  ;  Edmondson  v.  Board  of  Education, 
108  Tenn.   557. 

Eesidence  Question  of  Fact.  —  State  v.  Penter, 
96  Mo.  .■Kpp.  416. 

4.  Legal  School  Age.  —  Weir  v.  State,  161 
Ind.    435    (between    six    and    twenty-one   years). 

5.  Eight  of  Admission  of  Colored  Pupils  to  Pub- 
lic Schools.  —  See  Hooker  :■.  Greenville.  130 
N.   Car.  472. 

♦23.  2.  Compulsory  Education  Acts. —  State 
7'.  Bailey.  157  Ind.  324;  State  v.  Peterman, 
22  Ind.  .^pp.  665. 

Compulsory  Education  Act  Held  Constitutional. 

—  State  ••.  Jackson.   71    N.  H.  552. 
Statutory  Provision  for  Boards  of  Truancy.  — 

See   Featherngill   f.    State,    .^.^    Irni.    A-'p.   6S3. 
Acts  Not  Construed  So  as  to  Imperil  Child's  Life. 

—  State  f.  Jackson.  71    N.  H.  552. 

4.  Statutes  Held  Constitutional.  —  French  v. 
Davidson,  143  Cal.  658  :  \'iemeister  f.  White, 
170   N.   Y.   2y.. 

6.  Eequiring  Vaccination  Apart  from  Express 
Statute.  —  Hutchins  :•.  Durham.  137  N.  Car. 
68. 

24.  1.  Hutchins  v.  Durham,  137  N.  Car. 
68. 


2.  Tuition  Fees.  —  Young  v.  Fountain  Inn 
Graded  School,  64  S.  Car.  131. 

Board  Has  So  Authority  to  Charge  Inci- 
dental Fees.  — \oung  v.  Fountain  Inn  Graded 
School,   64   S.    Car.    131. 

Payment  of  Tuition  by  Nonresident.  —  Fiske 
f.  Huntington,  179  Mass.  571  ;  Washington 
Academy  r.  Cruikshank,  { Supm.  Ct.  Spec.  T.) 
43  Misc.  (N.  Y.)  197;  Board  of  Education  v. 
Foster,  116  Ky.  484;  Wrentham  v.  Fales.  1S5 
Mass.    539. 

Contract  to  Pay  Tuition  by  Nonresident  Enforce- 
able.—  Wrentham    f.    Fales,    1S5    Mass.    539. 

Tuition  Payable  by  Town  or  District  of  Eesi- 
dence. —  Kerr  v.  Perry  School  Tp.,  162  Ind. 
310;   Fiske  V.   Huntington.    179   Mass.  571. 

Statute  Directory  Merely.  —  State  v.  Board 
of  Education,  12  Ohio  Cir.  Dec.  337. 

Tuition  Payable  by  School  Corporation  for 
Excess  Over  Proportionate  Share.  —  Boggs 
V.  School  Tp..  Uowa  1905)  102  N.  W.  Rep. 
796. 

Statutory  Provision  for  Transfer  of  Pupils  from 
One  District  to  Another.  —  Weir  v.  State,  161 
Ind.  435  ;  Kerr  v.  Perry  School  Tp.,  162  Ind. 
310. 

4.  Power  of  Teacher  to  Inflict  Corporal  Punish- 
ment.—  Haycraft  f.  Grigsby,  88  Mo.  .App.  354; 
Drum  V.  Miller.  135  N.  Car.  216.  quoting  25 
Am.  and  Eng.  Encyc.  of  L.aw  (2d  ed.)  24; 
State  V.  Thornton,  136  N.  Car.  610. 

Whether  Teacher  Acts  in  Loco  Parentis.  —  See 
Drum  f.  Miller,  135  N,  Car.  216,  quoting  25 
-Am.   .^vd   I'nt,.   Encyc.  of  Law    (2d  ed.t    24. 

Moderate  Correction  by  Teacher  Authorized  by 
Statute.— Stephens   f.    State.   44   Tex.    Crim.    67. 

Presumption  that  Punishment  Was  Lawful.  — 
State  f.   Thornton,    136   X.   Car,   610. 

25.  1.  Liability  for  Wanton  or  Malicious 
Punishment.  —  Haycraft  z:  Grigsby.  88  Mo. 
App.  354:  State  f.  Thornton.  136  N.  Car.  610 
(revenge  or  malice)  ;  Drum  r.  Miller.  135  N. 
Car.   216. 

2.  Liability  for  Excessive  Punishment.  —  State 
T.  Thornton.  136  N.  Car.  610:  Drum  v. 
Miller.    13?    X.   Car.   216. 

Punishment  Held  Not  to  Be  Excessive. —  See 
Stephens  f.    State,    44   Tex.    Crim.    67. 

Directors       who     advise     or     encourage     im- 


762 


Vol.  XXV. 


SCHOOLS. 


25  30 


(i)  l\Kvcr    to    lixpi-l  -[&)  School 


t85.    b.  Expulsion   and  Suspension 
Board.  —  See  note  6. 

26.  (2)    Grounds  Jor  Expulsion — (b)    In  Absence  of   Express  Eegulations.  —  See 
note  3. 

(3)   Ronedies  —  (a)  Action  for  Damages.  —  See  note  7. 

27.  (b)   Mandamus.  —  See  note  2. 

Right  of  Action  in  Parent  or  Guardian.  —  See  note  3. 

[(^d)  Injunction  has  been  held  to  lie  to  restrain  school  directors  from 
interfering  with  the  attendance  of  a  pupil.®"] 

c.  Offenses  Out  of  School.  —  See  note  9. 

28.  IV.  Rules  and  Regulations.  —  See  note  i. 

29.  See  note  i. 

V.  Text-books  and  Courses  of  Study—  1.  Text-books  —  a.  Power 
OF  Legislature  to  Estahlisii  Uniform  Series.  --  See  notes  3,  4. 
b.  Change  of  Series.  —  See  note  6. 

30.  c.  Delegation  of  Power  of  Adoption  or  Change.  —  See  notes 
2,  3- 


moderate     whipping     are     liable.       Haycraft     v. 
Grigsby,   88    Mo.    App.    354. 

Liability  of  Teacher  for  Personal  Injury  to 
Pupil,  —  Drum  v.  Miller,  135  N.  Car.  204,  102 
Am.    St.    Rep.    5.38. 

25.  3.    State  v.  Thornton,    136   N.   Car.   610. 
4.  Excessiveness   a    Question     for    the     Jury. 

Drum  V.  Miller,   135   N.   Car.  216. 

The  jury  may  infer  malice  from  the  exces- 
siveness of  the  punishment.  State  v.  Thornton, 
136   N.   Car.  610. 

6.  Power  of  School  Board  to  Suspend  Pupils.  — 
Harris  v.  Kill,  108  111.  App.  305;  Morrison  v. 
Lawrence,  181  Mass.  127;  Young  v.  Fountain 
Inn  Graded   School,   64   S.   Car.    131. 

The  Investigation  of  Charges  May  Be  Delegated 
to  a  Committee  of  the  board  when  its  action  is 
reviewed  by  the  full  board.  Miller  r.  Clement, 
205    Pa.   St.   484. 

26.  3.  Expulsion  for  Writing  Articles  Criti- 
cising Management  of  School.  —  Morrison  v. 
Lawrence,    186   Mass.  456. 

Expulsion  for  Bearing  False  Witness  Against 
Fellow  Student. —  Goldstein  v.  New  York  Uni- 
versity,  76   N.   Y.  App.   Div.  80. 

7.  No  Liability  for  Error  of  Judgment  in  Expel- 
ling Pupil. —  Morrison  v.  Lawrence,  iSi  Mass. 
1 27. 

27.  2.  Mandamus  to  Compel  Reinstatement 
of  Pupil. —  Miller  v.  Dailey,  136  Cal.  212; 
Board  of  Public  Education  v.  Felder,  116  c;a. 
788;  State  V.  Penter,  06  Mo.  App.  416;  Miz- 
ner  v.  School  Dist.  No.  11,  (Neb.  1901)  96 
N.  W^  Rep.  128;  Edmondson  v.  Board  of 
Education,  108  Tenn.  557.  See  also  Miller  v. 
Clement,  205  Pa.  St.  484,  wherein  mandamus 
was  refused. 

Remedies  Provided  by  School  Law  Must  Be  First 
Exhausted. —  Stockton  7'.  Board  of  Education, 
(N.   T.   1905)   50  Atl.  Rep.   1 06 1. 

3.   Comf'arc  Weir  v.   State,    161    Ind.   4^5. 

6<7.  Injunction.  —  Mizner  v.  School  Dist.  No. 
II,    (Neb.    looi)    96   N.   W.   Ren.    128. 

9.   Morrison    v.    Lawrence.    t8i    Mass.    127. 

Right  of  School  Authorities  to  Control  Pupils 
When  Goine  to  and  from  School.  —  See  Tones  v. 
Cody,    T.-JJ    Mich.    13.   o    Detroit    T.ecr.    N.    400. 

28.  1.  Power  of  Board  to  Adopt  Reasonable 
Begulations.—  Rule    v.    Geddes,    23     App.     Cas. 


(D.  C.)  31;  Alvord  v.  Chester,  180  Mass.  20; 
Jones  V.  Cody,  132  Mich.  13,  9  Detroit  Leg.  N. 
499;    Hutchins  V.  Durham,    137   N.  Car.  68. 

Requiring  Pupils  to  Pursue  Particular  Studies 
Held  Reasonable,  —  State  v.  Schauss.  23  Ohio 
Cir.  Ct.  Rep.  283. 

What  Are  Reasonable  Rules  a  Question  of  Law. 
—  Koons  7'.    Longum,   93    Minn.    t,t,2. 

A  Rule  Requiring  Pupils  to  Pay  a  Rental  Fee 
for  Books  as  a  prerequisite  to  admission,  regard- 
less of  whether  the  pupils  possess  the  books,  is 
unreasonable.     Mathis  v.  Gordy,    119  Ga.  817. 

A  Requirement  that  Teachers  Shall  Not  Fre- 
quent Saloons  in  the  vicinity  of  the  school  is 
reasonable.      Koons   v.    Longum,   93    Minn.    2,^,2. 

Regulations  as  to  Receiving  Callers  Held  to  Be 
Unreasonable. —  Hall-Moody  Institute  '•.  Co- 
pass,    108    Tcnn.   582. 

29.  1.  Power  of  Teacher  to  Make  Rules.  — 
Sec   State   r.   Schcve,   65    Neb.   877. 

Teacher  Not  Liable  to  Storekeeper  for  Loss  of 
Trade  from  Enforcement  of  Reasonable  Rule.  — 
Jones  V.  Cody,  132  Mich.  13,  9  Detroit  Leg. 
N.  400. 

3.  Legislative  Power  to  Establish  Uniform  Series 
of  Text-books, —  Dickinson  :•,  Cunniii^liam.  140 
Ala.  527  ;  .\tty.-(".en.  :■.  Coartl  of  I'.ducation, 
133    Mich.  681,    10    Detmit   Leg.    N.   3'4. 

4.  Authorizing  Contract  with  Particular  Pub- 
lisher.—  Dickinson  v.  Cunninghani,  14M  .\la. 
527- 

6.  Statutory  Provisions  for  Changing  Text- 
books.—  American  Book  Co.  v.  McLlroy,  76 
S.  W.  Rep.  850.  25  Ky.  L.  Rep.  960;  Atty.- 
Gcn.  V.  Board  of  Education.  133  Mich.  681.  10 
Detroit  Leg.  N.  314;  State  v.  Wilson.   121   Wis. 

Mandamus  Denied  to  Publisher.  —  State  v. 
Wilson,  121  Wis.  523.  See  also  Atty.-Gen. 
7'.  Board  of  Education,  133  Mich.  681.  10  De- 
troit  Leg.  N.   314. 

Injunction  DeniM  to  Publisher.  —  Rand  7'. 
Hartranft,   29  Wash.  501. 

Injunction  Granted  to  Publisher  Where  Direc- 
tors Failpd  to  Use  Book  Adopted.  —  Eaton  v. 
Rovnl.   36   Wash.   4>,-. 

J{0,  2.  Tanne*-  -'.  Nelson.  25  Utah  226 : 
Rand  v.  Hartranft.  20  Wqsh.  591  ;  Westland 
Pub.    Co.    V.    Royal.    36    Wash.    399 ;    Rand    v. 


763 


**^.'y'w»A^*'wvj-M3i:i:i:ciji.».M«'^ 


30  34 


SCHOOLS. 


Vol.  XXV. 


30.  d.  P^KKL  Text-books. —  See  notes  4,  5. 

2.  Courses  of  Study.   —  See  note  6. 

3.  Religious  Exercises.  —  See  note  7. 

31.  Sec  note  I. 

VI.  School  Districts  —  1.  Nature  and  Purpose.  —  See  note  2. 

Whether  a  Municipal  Corporation.  —  See  note  3. 

School  Districts  Independent  of  Municipality.  —  See  note  5. 

32.  2.   Formation    and    Organization  —  a.  Authority    to    Create 
(i)  ///  General.  —  See  note  2. 

(2)  Delegation  of  Authority  to  Officials.  —  See  note  4. 

(3)  Submission  of  Question  to  Vote  of  Inhabitants.  —  See  note  6. 

33.  b.  Requisites  as  to  District  Limits.  — See  note  2. 

Limitations  as  to  Size.  —  See  note  6. 

c.  Presumption  of  Legality  of  Formation.  —  See  note  7. 

34.  d.  Not  Subject  to  Collateral  Attack.  —See  note  i. 
/.  Graded  or  High  School  Districts.  —  See  note  3. 

3.  Alteration  of  Boundaries  —  «.   In  General.  — See  notes  4,  5. 


Royal,  36  Wash.  420  ;  Wagner  v.  Royal,  36 
Wash.   428. 

State  Text-book  Commission.  —  Dickinson  v. 
Cunningham,  140  Ala.  sj";  Silver  v.  State 
Board  of  Education,  (Ind.  App.  1904)  71  N.  E. 
Rep.   667. 

JJO.  3.  Harris  v.  Kill,  108  111.  App.  305; 
Ries  V.  Hemmer,  127  Iowa  408;  Madden  v. 
Kinney,  116  Wis.  561. 

Power  Vested  in  Local  Board  by  City  Charter.  — 
State  V.   Wilson.    121    Wis.   523. 

4.  Provision  for  Furnishing  Books  to  Poor 
Children.  —  Alianii  County  v.  Falk,  29  Ind.  App. 
683. 

The  Board  of  Education  May  Rent  Books  to 
pupils,  but  cannot  force  pupils  lo  rent  them 
when  they  already  possess  duplicate  copies. 
Mathis  V.  Gordy,   119  Ga.  817. 

5.  Harris  v.  Kill,   108   111.  App.  305- 

6.  Power  of  School  Board  to  Fix  Courses  of 
Study.  —  Where  the  state  board  has  the  exclu- 
sive right  to  fix  the  courses  of  study,  the  local 
directors  have  no  authority  to  adopt  a  course 
in  conflict  with  that  prescribed.  Wagner  v. 
Royal.  36  Wash.  428 ;  Rand  v.  Royal,  36  Wash. 
420 ;  Westland  Pub.  Co.  v.  Royal,  36  Wash. 
399- 

Music  May  Be  Prescribed  by  Trustees.  —  W.  P. 
Myers  Pub.  Co.  v.  White  River  School  Tp., 
28  Ind.  App.  91. 

7.  Religious  Exercises. —  State  r.  Scheve,  65 
Neb.  853,  wherein  on  motion  for  rehearing,  the 
original  opinion  was  elaborated,  the  court  hold- 
ing that  the  question  whether  it  is  prudent  or 
politic  to  permit  Bible-reading  is  for  the  school 
authorities;  but  whether  the  practice  of  Bible- 
reading  has  taken  the  form  of  sectarian  in- 
struction  is  a   question   for   the  courts. 

31.  1.  Repeating  the  Lord's  Prayer  and  the 
Twenty-third  Psalm  as  a  morning  exercise,  with- 
out comment,  is  held  in  Kansas  not  to  be  con- 
ducting a  form  of  religious  worship  or  teaching 
.■sectarian  or  religious  doctrine.  Billard  v.  Board 
of  Education,  6q  Kan.  53.  105  .\m.  St.  Rep.  148. 

2.  Nature  and  Purpose  of  School  Districts.  — 
State  V.  Ogan.  159  Ind.  119;  Union  School 
Dist.   V.   District    No.    20,    71    N.    H.    260. 

School  District  Made  Body  Corporate  by  Statute. 
—  Kellogg  v.  School  Dist.  No.  10,  13  Okla.  2S5. 


3.  Board  of  Education  Held   to    Be   Municipal 

Corporation. —  See  Whitehead  v.  Board  of 
Education,  (Mich.  1905)  102  N.  W.  Rep.  1028. 
A  School  District  Has  Been  Held  to  Be  a  "  Town," 
within  the  meaning  of  a  statute  requiring 
towns  to  maintain  high  schools.  Union  School 
Dist.  V.  District  No.  20,  71   N.  H.  269. 

5.  Scott  V.  Goshen,  162  Ind.  204;  State  v. 
Buchanan,  (Tex.  Civ.  App.  1904)  83  S.  W. 
Rep.  T22,. 

;t2.  2.  Power  of  Legislature  to  Form  School 
Districts.  — Howe  v.  Board  of  Education,  (N. 
J.  1905)  60  Atl.  Rep.  518.  See  also  Riccio  v. 
Hobokcn,   69   N.  J.  L.  649. 

The  Law  Must  Be  General  and  have  uniform 
operation  in  the  state.  State  v.  Spellmire,  67 
Ohio   St.   JT. 

4.  Power  Vested  in  County  Commissioners'  Court. 

—  See  Gerber  v.  Wright  County,  89  Minn. 
351. 

Appeal  from  County  Superintendent  to  County 
Commissioners.  —  Tilley  v.  Greer  County, 
(Okla.  1905)   79  Pac.  Rep.  756. 

6.  Submission  of  Question  to  Vote  of  Inhabitants. 

—  State  V.  Cass  County.  (Neb.  1903)  95  N. 
W.  Reix  6 ;  People  r.  \'."nhorn,  (Colo.  App. 
1904)    77    Pac.    Rep.   078. 

3;j.  2.  Geographical  Lines  May  Be  Run 
According  to  Population.  —  Farley  v.  Gilbert, 
■J2  S.   W.   Rep.    1098,  24   Ky.   L.   Rep.   2109. 

6.  See   Jackson   ;■.    Brewer.    112   Ky.   554. 

7.  Waiver  of  State's  Right  to  Forfeiture  for 
Irregular  Formation.  —  See  State  v.  School 
Dist.    No.    108.   85    Minn.   230. 

.14.  1.  Not  Subject  to  Collateral  Attack.  — 
Gale  r.  Knopf,  193  111.  245;  Howe  v.  Board 
of   Education.   (N.  J.   1905)   60  Atl.  Rep.   518. 

3.  Graded  or 'High  School  Districts. —  Gale  v. 
Knopf.  193  111.  24s:  Russell  v.  High  School 
Board  of  Education.  212  111.  Z2-}  \  Taylor  v. 
Russell.  117  Ky.  539:  Territory  v.  Logan 
County  High  School.   13  Okla.  605. 

Laws  Authorizing  Cities  to  Charge  Tuition  for 
High  Schools  Unconstitutional.  —  Board  of 
Education  v.  Dick.  (Kan.  1904")  78  Pac.  Rep. 
812. 

4.  Power  of  Leerislature  to  Alter  Boundaries.  — 
People  V.  Keechler.  194  111.  235  ;  Rural  In- 
dependent   School    Dist.    No.    Ten   v.    New    In- 


-M 


Vol.  XXV. 


SCHOOLS. 


35  38 


35.  b.  Creating   School  Districts   in   Towns  and  Cities. —  See 
note  I. 

Annexing  CoutiguouB  Territory  to  Municipality.  —  See  note  3. 
Effect  of  Extension  of  City  Limits.  —  See  note  5. 

c.   Delkg.vtion  oi-   Power  of  Alter.viton  to  Oeficials.  —  See 
note  6. 

36.  d.  Consent  of  Inhabitants—  (i)  //;  General.  —See  note  2. 
(2)  Petition.  —  See  note  3. 

37.  (3)  Submission  to  Voters.  — See  note  i. 
e.  Notice.  —  See  note  2. 

38.  /.  Regularity  of  Alteration  Not  Subject  to  Collater\l 
Attack.  — See  note  i. 

g.  Effect  on  Property  Rights  — (1)  In  General. -- Sqq  note  3. 
(2)  Real  Estate.  —  See  note  6. 


dependent  School  Dist.,  120  Iowa  iig;  Ash  v. 
Thorp,  65  Kan.  60;  Atty.-Gen.  v.  Lowrey,  131 
Mich.  639 ;  Board  of  Education  v.  Board  of 
Education,  76  N.  Y.  App.  Div.  355,  affirmed 
179  N.  Y.  556;  Boesch  v.  Byrom,  (Tex.  Civ. 
App.  1904)  83  S.  W.  Rep.  18.  See  also  Barber 
J'.  .Mexander,  120  Ga.  30  (unconstitutional 
statute). 

District  Not  Altered  by  Mere  Change  of  Name. 
—  State  %■.   Ogan,    159    Ind.    119. 

34.  5.  Statutes  Authorizing  Alteration.  — 
Gale  V.  Knopf,  193  111.  245  :  People  v.  Keechlcr, 
194  111.  235  I  Rural  Independent  School  Dist.  No. 
Ten  V.  New  Independent  School  Dist.,  120 
Iowa  119;  Williams  v.  Core,  124  Iowa  213; 
Noble  f.  White,  77  S.  W.  Rep.  678.  25  Ky. 
L.  Rep.  1282;  State  v.  Denny,  04  Mo.  App. 
559;  Meyers  v.  School  Dist.  2-28-13,  96  Mo. 
App.  48:  State  V.  McClain,  187  Mo.  409;  State 
V.  Buchanan,  (Tex.  Civ.  App.  1904)  83  S.  W. 
Rep.   723,. 

Forming  Subdistricts  or  Divisions  of  District 
Not  Amounting  tojilndependent  Districts. —  Board 
of  P'.ducatinn  v.  Board  of  Education,  67  Ohio 
St.   326. 

Eequirement  of  Signatures  of  Voters.  —  Sec 
People    '•.    Rhodes,    109    111.    .\pp.    ii'l 

35.  1.  Creating  School  Districts  in  Towns 
and  Cities, — -See  Barber  v.  Alexander,  120  ( la. 
30. 

Statute  Authorizing  Unincorporated  Towns  to 
Incorporate  for  School  Purposes  Only.  —  See  Sut- 
ton T'.    School    City,   -;8    In.l.   App.   315. 

3.  Annexing  Contiguous  Territory  to  Munici- 
pality.—  Mauniee  School  Tp.  i'.  School  Town, 
159   Ind.  423. 

Request  for  Annexation  by  Majority  of  the  In- 
habitants and  Affirmative  Vote  by  City  Council,  — 
School  Dist.  No.  30  v.  School  Dist.,  63  Neb. 
44- 

5.  School  Dist.  No.  7  v.  School  Dist.,  184 
Mo.  140. 

In  Illinois  the  charters  of  cities  provide  that 
the  cities  have  control.  School  Trustees  '•. 
School   Inspectors.  214  III.  30. 

6.  Power  Vested  in  School  Trustees.  —  People 
7'.    Keeclilrr.    104    111.   2?,^. 

Power  Vested  in  County  Superintendent.  — 
Farley  r.  Gilliert.  72  S.  W.  Rep.  T098.  24  Ky. 
L.  Rep.  2100:  Kellogg  v.  School  Dist.  No.  10, 
13   Okla.   285. 

Power  Vested  in  County  Superintendent  After 
Statutory   Notice    and    Petition.  —  School    Dist. 


No.  44  V.  Turner,  13  Okla.  71.  See  also 
Noble  V.  White,  77  S,  W.  Rep.  678,  25  Ky.  L. 
Rep.   1282. 

Power  Vested  in  County  Commissioners  —  Notice 
to  and  Assent  of  Voters  Required.  —  State  v. 
Patton,    108   Mo.   App.   26. 

Power  in  Town  Board  After  Notice  to  Clerks  of 
District  Affected.  —  State  v.  Clifton,  113  Wis. 
107.  See  also  School  Dist,  v.  Palmer,  41 
Oregon  485. 

36.  2.  Necessity  of  Consent  of  Inhabitants.  — 
People  i'.  Keechler,  194  111.  235  ;  Howell  v. 
Shannon,  130  Mich.  556,  9  Detroit  Leg.  N. 
159;    Peth  V.   Martin,  31    Wash.    i. 

Provision  for  Appeal  in  Case  of  Disagreement  in 
Vote  of  Different  Districts  Affected.  —  State  v. 
Wilson,  99   Mo.  App.  675. 

3.  Petition  by  Voters.  —  People  v.  Keechler, 
194  III.  235;  Rural  Independent  School  Dist. 
No.  Ten  ?■.  New  Independent  School  Dist., 
120  Iowa  119;  Gerber  v.  Wright  County.  89 
Minn.  351;  School  Dist.  No.  44  v.  Turner,  13 
Okla.  71- 

37.  1  Submission  to  Voters  upon  Petition  and 
Notice. —  People  v.  \'an  Horn,  (Colo.  .\jip. 
1904)  77  Pac.  Rep.  978:  Ihiyser  :•.  School  In- 
spectors, 131  Mich.  56S,  9  Detroit  Leg.  N. 
437- 

2,  Necessity  of  Notice. —  Huyscr  v.  School  In- 
spectors, 131  Mich.  568,  9  Detroit  Leg.  N.  437; 
School  District  Number  Four  v.  Smith,  90  Mo. 
App.  215:  School  Dist.  No.  44  v.  Turner,  13 
Okla.  71;   Peth  v.  Martin.  31   Wash.   i. 

3«.  1.  Regularity  of  Alteration  Not  Subject 
to   Collateral   Attack.  —  Gale  v.  Knopf,   193   111. 

Proper  Reason  for  Change  of  Boundaries  Pre- 
sumed.—  Farley  v.  Gilbert,  72  S.  W.  Rep.  1098, 
24  Ky.  L.  Rep.  2109. 

Injunction  is  held  to  be  the  proper  remedy 
where  the  county  superintendent  arbitrarily 
and  without  requisite  petition  and  notice  at- 
tempts to  change  boundaries.  School  Dist.  No. 
44  V.  Turner,   13  Okla.  71. 

3.  Effect  on  Property  Rights.  — Old  Forge 
School  Dist.'s  Indebtedness,  24  Pa.  Super.  Ct. 
239.  See  also  .Atty.-Gen.  v.  Lowrey,  131  Mich. 
6.30- 

6.  See  Board  of  Education  v.  State,  64  Kan. 
6:  In  re  Wilkins  Tp.  School  Dist..  18  Pa. 
Super.   Ct.   20  3. 

Compensation  Required  by  Statute  for  Undue 
Proportion  of  Real  Estate,  —  See  Munhall   Bor- 


765 


^v^e'jTjfjfjorj^j^uK*^^ 


38-44 


SCHOOLS. 


Vol.  XXV. 


38. 

30. 
40. 

note  5. 
41. 

43. 
44. 


(3)  Funds  or  Assets.  —  See  note  7. 

(4j  Abo  ilion  of  Old  Dislrict.  —  Sec  note  2. 

h.  Apr>)kiivKN.\ir:Ni"  of  Liabimi  ii:s.  — See  notes  2,  4. 

4.  Meetings  —  ^?.     AuniOKiTV    ru    Call  —  (i)    ///    General.  —  See 

b    How   Callld. — See  note  7. 

Notice  of  Object  of  Meeting.  —  See  notes  I,  2. 

V.  Presidin'l;  Olmcer.  — See  note  8. 

//.    Record  OL  AlEEriXO  —  Records  as  Evidence.  —  See  note  5. 

5.  Powers  and  Liabilities  —  a.    L\  General.  —  See  note  9. 
c.  Poweu  r(j  CoxTRAcr.    -  See  note  2. 

Borrowing  Mjasy  and  Issuance  of  Bonds.  —  See  note  3- 
CoaslitutiOiial  or  Statutory  Limitations.  —  See  note  4. 


ough  School  Dist.  v.  .Mimin  Tp.  School  Dist., 
207    Pa.    St.    638. 

Where  a  City  Has  Annexed  Territory  Containing 
School  Property,  it  has  been  held  in  Indiana 
that  in  the  absence  of  statute  the  school  prop- 
erty becomes  that  of  the  city.  Maumee  School 
Tp.  V.  School  Town,    159   Ind.  423. 

38.  7.  Statutory  Provision  lor  Apportionment 
of  Assets.  —  Sunol  School  Dist.  v.  Chipman,  138 
Cal.  251  ;  School  Dist.  No.  i  v.  School  Dist. 
^o.  7,  33  Colo.  43  ;  School  Dist.  No.  i  v.  Mc- 
Cormick,  ( Xeb.  1903)  93  N.  W.  Rep.  956; 
Munhall  Borough  School  Dist.  r.  Mifflin  Tp. 
School  Dist.,  207  Pa.  St.  638;  In  re  Wilkins 
Tp.  School  Dist.,  18  Pa.  Super.  Ct.  2')3  ;  School 
Dist.  No.  9  -'.  School  Dist.  No.  5,  118  Wis. 
233- 

Recovery  of  Proportion  in  Action  for  Money 
Had  and  Received.  —  School  Dist.  Xo.  9  f. 
School   Dist.   No.   5,    118   Wis.    23.^ 

!19.  2.  See  In  re  School  Committee,  26  R. 
L    164. 

40.  2.  Assumption  of  Liabilities  of  Abolished 
District.  —  School  Dist.  No.  i  v.  School  Dist. 
No.  7,  23  Colo.  43 ;  Maumee  School  Tp.  v. 
School   Town,    159   Ind.   423. 

4.  Apportionment  under  Statutes. —  School  Dist. 
No.  I  v.  School  Dist.  No.  7,  t,3  Colo.  43  : 
Board  of  Education  v.  State,  64  Kan.  6. 

6.  Authority  to  Call  Meetings  in  General.— 
Goerdt  v.  Trumm,  118  Iowa  207;  Young  v. 
Fountain  Inn  Graded  School,  64  S.  Car.   131. 

41.  7.  Goerdt  v.  Trumm,  118  Iowa  207: 
Cunningham  t'.  Board  of  Education,  53  W.  \'a. 
318. 

42.  1.  Statement  of  Object  of  Meeting  Required. 
—  Benham  f.  Potter,  yy  Conn.  186;  Goerdt  r. 
Trumm,  118  Iowa  207;  Lawson  v.  Lincoln,  P/S 
N.  Y.  App.  Div.  217,  affirmed  178  N.  Y.  636. 

2.  Sufficiency  of  Notice  of  Object.  —  Greenlees 
V.  Picton  Public  School  Board,  2  Ont.  L.  Rep. 
387:  Benham  7'.  Potter.  77  Conn.  186;  Stanton 
V.  Board  of  Education.  68  X.  T.  L.  406  ;  Lawson 
V.  Lincoln.  86  N.  Y.  App.  Div.  217,  affirmed 
178   N.   Y.   636. 

8.  State  r.  Waterhouse.  71    N.   11.  488. 

43.  5.  Records  as  Evidence. —  Polk  v.  Board 
of  Education,   140  Cal.  xvii.  74  Pac.  Rep.  47. 

9.  Powers  of  School  Di  t-icts  in  G:!neral.  —  Sut- 
ton 7'.  School  City.  28  Ifd.  .App.  315  (no  au- 
thority to  contract  for  street")  ;  State  v.  Um- 
barger,  69  Kan.  66 ;  Kirld  v.  Truett,  28  Tex. 
Civ.  App.  618   (may  hold  local-option   election'). 

44.  2.    Contracts   Held    Not   Authorized    by 


Statute. —  See  Poling  v.  Board  of  Education,  56 
W.    \a.   251. 
Contract  Must  Be  in  Writing  Signed  by  Parties. 

—  Perkins  v.  Independent  School  Dist..  99  Mo. 
App.  483- 

3.  Power  to  Borrow  Money  and  Issue  Bonds.  — 
Gamble  f.  Rural  Independent  School  Dist.,  132 
Fed.  Rep.  514;  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  People, 
195  111.  423;  Wabash  R.  Co.  v.  People.  202  lU. 
9  ;  Board  of  Education  v.  Phillips,  67  Kan.  549, 
100  Am.  St.  Rep.  475  ;  State  v.  School  Dist. 
No.  108,  85  Minn.  230,  wherein  a  district  not 
legally  organized  was  held  to  be  liable  for 
money  advanced  in  good  faith  on  its  bonds ; 
Benton  v.  Scott,  168  Mo.  378;  Niles  v.  Board 
of  Education,  70  N.  J.  L.  i  :  State  f.  Brock, 
66  S.  Car.  357:  Parkinson  z\  Seattle  School 
Dist.   No.    I.   28   \\'ash.    t,3s- 

Issuance  of  Promissory  Notes.  —  Lincoln  School 
Tp.  V.  Union  Trust  Co.,  (Ind.  App.  1905)  y^ 
N.  E.  Rep.  623.  See  also  Fairfield  v.  Rural 
Independent  School  Dist.,  (C.  C.  A.)  116  Fed. 
Rep.   83S,  rcvcrsins.    m    Fed.   Rep.   453. 

Issuing  Bonds  Sole  Method  of  Borrowing  Money. 

—  Kellogg    '■.    School    Dist.    Xo.    10.    13    Okla. 
285. 

Liability  on  Substituted  Bonds. —  See  Oswego 
City  Sav.  Bank  v.  Board  of  Education,  70  N.  Y. 
App.   Div.  538,  aflirmcd   174  X.   Y.  515. 

4.  Limitations  upon  Power  to  Contract  Indebted- 
ness. —  Baltimore,  etc..  R.  Co.  j'.  People.  195 
111.  423;  Wabash  R.  Co.  v.  People.  202  111.  9; 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  People.  205  111.  625 ; 
Russell  V.  High  School  Board  of  Education, 
212  111.  327:  Farmers,  etc..  State  Bank  x\ 
School  Tp..  118  Iov>-a  540;  Benton  v.  Scott,  168 
Mo.  37S:  Thornburg  7'.  .School  Dist.  No.  3.  175 
M".  tj:  Montpelier  Sav.  Bank,  etc..  Co.  v. 
Snlinol    Dist.    Xo.   5.    Its   Wis.   622. 

Validity  of  Judgment  for  Debt  Contracted  in 
Violation  of  Constitutional  Limitation. —  See  Mc- 
(iillivr.ny  v.  Joint  School  Dist.  Xo.  i.  iij  Wis. 
33  1.   88    Am.   St.   Rep.  069. 

The  District  Is  Liable  for  the  Debt  evidenced 
by  bonds  exceeding  the  lawful  li-nit.  and  the 
holder  of  such  bonds  may  be  sub-'^T-i^ed  to  the 
rights  of  the  original  lender.  C,--p-  -'.  School 
Dist.  No.   IT.   (C.  C.  A.)    Ill    FH.   Rr...  682. 

Court  Cannot  "Reduce  Bonds  to  A-oomt  Within 
Limit. —  Thornburg  r.   School    Di-t.    Xo.   3.    175 

Mo.      12. 

Vote  for  Unlawful  Amount  of  Indebtedness  Opera- 
tive to  Authorize  Lawful  Amount.  —  Wabash  R. 
Co.  -'.   People.   202    III.  9. 


-66 


Vol.  XXV. 


SCHOOLS. 


45-48 


45.  d.  Acquiring  and  Holding  Lands.  —  See  note  2. 
e.  Capacity  to  Sue  and  Be  Sued.  —  See  note  3. 

Employment  of  Attorneys.  —  See  note  4. 

g.   Liabii.itv  for   Negligence  or  Tresi'.\ss  uy  Officers  or 
Agents.  —  Sec  notes  6,  8. 

46.  6.  Dissolution  and  Abolition.  - —  See  note  3. 

VII.  School  Buildings — 1.  Erection  or  Acquisition  —  <^?.  Authority 
to  Erect.  —  See  note  5. 

47.  See  note  i. 

Ofl&cers  Acting  under  Authority  from  District  Meeting.  —  See  notes  2,  3. 
Building  Committee.  —  See  note  4. 

48.  Limitation  of  Power  to  Create  Indebtedness.  —  See  note  I. 

b.  Contract  wuti  Luwksi  Responsible  Bidder.  —See  note  3. 

c.  Ratification  of  Unauthorized  Contract.  —  See  notes  6,  7. 

3   N.   E. 


Contract  Binding  Up  to  Constitutional  Limit.  — 

McGillivray    f.    Joint    School    Disl.    No.    i,    112 
Wis.  354,   88  Am.   St.   Rep.  969. 

No  Eecovery  on  Quantum  Meruit.  —  See  Per- 
kins V.  Independent  School  Dist.,  99  Mo.  App. 
483. 

45.  2.  Power  to  Acquire  and  Hold  Lands.  — 
See  Dawson  f.  Common  School  Dist.  .\o.  40, 
IIS  I^y-  151:  Hayward  v.  School  Dist.  No.  9, 
(Mich.  1905)  loj  N.  W.  Rep.  999;  Niles  v. 
Board  of  Education,  70  N.  J.  L.   i. 

3.  Capacity  to  Sue  and  Be  Sued.  —  Hancock  v. 
Board  of  Education,  140  Cal.  554;  State  v. 
Ogan,  159  Ind.  119;  Poling  v.  Board  of  Educa- 
tion, 50  W.  Va.  374.  See  also  Fairfield  v. 
Rural  Independent  School  Dists.,  1 1 1  Fed.  Rep. 
108. 

Capacity  Limited  to  Actions  Relating  to  Cor- 
porate Rights, —  Board  of  Education  v.  Board  of 
Education.  76  N.  Y.  App.  Div.  355.  affirmed 
179  N.  Y.  556;  State  -'.  School  Com"rs.  94  Md. 
334- 

Board  Not  Exempt  from  Suit  as  Agent  of  State. 
—  Oberdorfer  7'.  Louisville  School  Board,  (Ky. 
1905)    85    S.   \Y.   Rep.   696. 

Effect  of  Repeal  of  Statute.  —  See  Wheeler  v. 
Board  of  Control,   \  t,j  Mich.  291. 

Suits  Should  Be  Brought  in  Name  of  Board.  — 
Gunnison  r.  Board  of  Education,   176  N.  Y.   11. 

4.  Employment  of  Attorneys. —  Kagy  v.  Inde- 
pendent Dist.,  117  Iowa  694;  Phillips  v.  Butler 
County,  187  Mo.  698.  See  also  Anderson  v. 
School  Dist.  No.  15,  89  N.  Y.  .'Kpp.  Div. 
231. 

Duty  of  City  Attorney  to  Act  for  Board  of 
Education.  —  Denman  v.  Webster,    iv)   ("al.  4?-'. 

The  District  Is  Not  Liable  for  Attorney  Fees 
incurred  by  electors  of  the  school  district  when 
sued  in  their  individual  capacity  for  libel  aris- 
ing from  a  report  made  by  a  committee  of 
which  they  were  members.  People  -■.  Skinner. 
74  N.  Y.  App.   Div.  58. 

6,  Whitehead  v.  Board  of  Education.  (Mich. 
1905^    102   N.  W.   Rep.    102.9. 

8.  Board  of  Education  Held  to  Be  Municipal 
Corporation  and  Not  Liable  for  Negligence  of  Em- 
ployees or  Agents. —  Whitehead  v.  Board  of  Edu- 
cation.  (Mich.   1905)    102   N.  W.  Rep.   102R. 

46.  3.  Statute  Abolishing  School  Districts  and 
Constituting  Each  Town  a  Single  District.  —  In  re 
School  Committee.  26  R.   I.   164. 

Dissolution  by  Trustee  —  Power  Dependent  on 
Number  of  Pupils. —  State  v.  Seely,  163  Ind.  244  ; 


Advisory  Board  v.   State,   (Ind.   1905) 
Rep.  700. 

5.  Power  of  District  to  Provide  School  Build- 
ing.—  Hale  V.  Brown,   70  Ark.  471. 

Limitation  of  Power  of  Country  District,  —  See 
Kellogs  V.   School   Dist.   No.   10,    ij  Okla.  285. 

Power  to  Provide  Separate  Houses  for  White 
and  Colored  Races,  —  See  Board  of  Education  v. 
Kingfisher  County,  14  Okla.  t,22.  .And  see  the 
title  Civil  Rights,  83.  5  ct  scq. 

47.  1.  Renting  Building,  —  Harris  -•.  Kill. 
108  111.  App.  305  ;  Cumberland  Bank  v.  Simp- 
son, 77  S.  W.  Rep.  695,  25  Ky.  L.  Rep.  1227, 
which  cases  support  the  first  paragraph  of  the 
original    note. 

Authority  of  Trustees  with  Consent  of  the  County 
Board,  —  Sligh  v.   Rowers.   62  S.  Car.  409. 

Duty  of  Township  Trustees  to  Provide  Building. 
—  Advisory  Board  v.  State,  (.Ind.  1905)  7;^  N. 
E.  Rep.  700. 

2.  Benham  r.    Potter,   77   Conn.    186. 

3.  Trustees  Empowered  by  Statute  to  Provide 
Buildings.  —  Young  f.  Fountain  Inn  Graded 
School,   64   S.   Car.    131. 

4.  Building  Committee.  —  School  Dist.  No.  3 
:■.  Western  Tube  Co.,   i,?   Wyo.  304. 

Contracts  with  Relatives  of  Board  Members, 
though  not  authorized  by  the  electors,  or  ap- 
proved by  the  superintendent,  as  required  by 
law,  have  been  upheld  where  they  were  exe- 
cuted. Kagy  V.  Independent  Dist.,  117  Iowa 
694. 

4§.  1.  Limitation  of  Power  to  Create  In- 
debtedness. —  Wabash  R.  Co.  r.  People,  202 
111.  9:  Scott  I'.  Goshen,  162  Ind.  204:  Farmers' 
Sav.  Bank  v.  Independent  School  Dist..  122 
Iowa   90  :    School   Dist.   No.   3  v.  Western   Tube 

Co..     ,.,    Wyo.    ,,04. 

After  the  Indebtedness  Has  Reached  the  Statu- 
tory Limit  the  school  district  may  levy  a  tax  for 
building  purposes  in  addition.  Cincinnati,  etc., 
R.  Co.  f.  People.  206  111.  .^87. 

3.  Statutes  Requiring  Contract  to  Be  Let  to 
Lowest  Bidder,  —  Criswell  7',  Everett  School 
Dist.  No.  24,  34  Wash.  420  :  School  Dist,  No.  3 
7'.   Western   Tube  Co..    n   Wyo.   304. 

6.  Ratification  of  Voidable  Contract.  —  School 
Dist.  No.  T,  ■:■.  Western  Tube  Co  .  i ;;  Wyo.  304. 
See  also  Criswell  r.  Everett  School  Dist.  No. 
24,  34  Wash.  420,  wherein  the  district  was  held 
to  be  liable  for  the  reasonable  value  of  the 
building  only. 

7.  Contract    for    Indebtedness   Beyond    Lawful 


767 


.ivW^/'ji^ftVi 


49  53 


SCHOOLS. 


Vol.  XXV. 


49.  2.  Care  and  Control  —  a.  In  General.  —  See  note  2. 

b.  Allowing    Use    of    School   Building   for   Other    than 
School  Purposes.  —  Sec  note  4. 

50.  See  notes  i,  2,4. 

3.  Site  —  a.  Authority  to  Select.  —  See  notes  7,  8, 

51.  See  note  2. 

b.  Taking  Site  by  Rioiit  of  Eminent  Domain.  — See  note  3. 

c.  Change  of  Site.  — See  note  6. 
53.     4.  Sale  of  Building.  —  See  note  i. 

VIII.  Officeks  — 1.  Superintendents  —  rt.  State  Superintendent. 
—  See  note  2. 

b.  County  Superintendent  — (i)  Pozvers.^StQ  note  5. 
53.     (2)  Election,  Term  of  Office,  and  Removal.  —  See  notes  2,  3,  4. 
(3)  Compensation.  ■ —  See  note  6. 


Amount. —  See    School    Dist.    No.   3   v.    Western 
Tube  Co.,   13  Wyo.  304. 

49.  r.  Duty  of  Board  to  Care  for  School 
Property.  -  Baggerly  v.  Lee,  (Ind.  App.  1905) 
T2,  N.  E.  Rep.  921  ;  Kellogg  v.  School  Dist.  No. 
10,   13   Okla.  285. 

Authority  to  Contract  for  Repairs.  —  Leonard 
V.  State,  67  Neb.  635. 

4.  Use  When  Unoccupied  for  School  Purposes  — 
Construction  of  Indiana  Statute. —  See  Baggerly  v. 
Lee.   (Ind.  App.    1905)    i},  N.   E.  Rep.  qji. 

50.  1.    Lewis  V.  Bateman,  26  Utah  434. 

2.  Cannot  Be  Used  for  Theatrical  Performances. 
—  Sugar  f.   Monroe.    108   La.   677. 

4.  Use  for  Township  Purposes.  —  Baggerly  v. 
Lee.  (Ind.  App.  1905)  -jz  N.  E.  Rep.  921  (may 
be  used  when  "  unoccupied  for  common-school 
purposes "). 

Use  for  Other  than  School  Purposes  Is  Permitted 
in  some  jurisdictions,  where  such  use  does  not 
interfere  with  the  regular  school  matters. 
Sugar  V.  Monroe,  108  La.  677;  Lewis  v.  Bate- 
man,  26   L^tah  434. 

7.  Selection  of  Site  by  Voters.  —  Ladd  v. 
School  Dist.  No.  6.  (Neb.  1903)  97  N.  W.  Rep. 
594;  Kellogg  f.  School  Dist.  No.  10,  13  Okla. 
285. 

Selection  at  Annual  School  Meeting.  —  School 
Dist.  No.  34  V.  Stairs,  (Neb.  1901)  95  N.  W. 
Rep.  492. 

Limitation  of  Discretion  as  to  Location.  — 
Kellci.eg   :•.    Scliool    Dist.    Xo.    10.    13    Okla.    283. 

8.  Power  to  Select  Site  Vested  in  Officers.  — 
James  v.  Gettinger,  123  Iowa  199;  Sligh  v. 
Bowers.  62  S.  Car.  409. 

Suit  by  Taxpayer  to  Enjoin  Erection  upon 
Designated  Site.  —  Conpare  Kellogg  v.  School 
Dist.   Xo.    10,    13   Okla.   285. 

51.  2.    James  v.  Gettinger.   123   Iowa    190. 
Designation    of    Site     by    Statute  —  Directory 

Merely.  —  .A.tty. -Gen.  r.   Lowrey.    131    Mich.   639. 

3.  Taking  Site  by  Right  of  Eminent  Domain.  — 
Richland  School  Tp.  v.  Overmyer,  164  Ind. 
382;  Kellogg  V.  School  Dist.  No.  10,  13  Okla. 
285. 

6.  Change  of  Site. —  Benham  v.  Potter,  77 
Conn.  186;  Hayward  v.  School  Dist.  No.  9, 
(Mich.  1905)  102  N.  W.  Rep.  990:  Livesay  v. 
Whitney.  107  Mo.  App.  475;  School  Dist.  No. 
34  V.  Stairs.  (Neb.  1901)  95  N.  W.  Rep.  492: 
Ladd  V.  School  Dist.  No.  6,  (Neb.  1903")  97 
N.  W.  Rep.  594  ;  State  v.  Chester  Tp..  25  Ohio 
Cir.  Ct.  424 ;   Sligh  v.  Bowers,  62  S.  Car.  409. 


Suit  by  Taxpayer  to  Enjoin  Removal.  —  James 
V.  Gettinger,  123  Iowa  199;  School  Dist.  No. 
34  V.  Stairs,  (Neb.  1901)  95  N.  W.  Rep.  492; 
Kellogg  V.  School  Dist.  No.  10,   13  Okla.  285. 

Suit  to  Enjoin  Removal  by  One  Who  Has  Con- 
tributed to  Establishment.  —  Packard  v.  Thiel 
College,  209   Pa.  St.  349. 

Directors  Not  Required  to  Give  Notice  of  Re- 
moval.—  James   v.    Gettinger,    123    Iowa  199. 

Power  to  Change  Site  Implied  from  Power  to 
Fix.    — James  v.  Gettinger,   123   Iowa   199. 

52.  1.  Sale  of  School  Buildings.  —  Sligh  v. 
Bowers,  62  S.  Car.  409.  See  also  Crouch  v. 
Posey,    (Tex.    Civ.   App.    1902)    69    S.    W.    Rep. 

lOOI. 

A  Sale  May  Be  Directed  by  the  Voters  of  the 
township,  assembled  in  annual  meeting.  James 
V.  Gettinger,    123   Iowa    199. 

2.  Superintendent  Prohibited  from  Acting  as 
Agent  for  Publisher,  Etc. —  See  State  v.  Law- 
rence, 178  Mo.  350. 

6.  Powers  of  County  Superintendent.  —  Mc- 
Greggor  v.  State,  31  Ind.  App.  483. 

Mandamus  to  Compel  Performance  of  Duty  by 
Superintendent.  —  People  v.  Vanhorn,  (Colo. 
App.  1901)  77  Pac.  Rep.  978;  Northington  v. 
Sublette,  114  Ky.  72;  American  Book  Co.  v. 
McElroy.  76  S.  W.  Rep.  850,  25  Ky.  L.  Rep. 
960  ;  Singleton  v.  Austin.  27  Tex.  Civ.  App.  88. 

"  Wilful  Failure "  to  Settle  Accounts  Misde- 
meanor. —  Tracy  v.  Com.,  76  S.  W.  Rep.  184, 
25  Ky.  L.  Rep.  669. 

5:?.  2.  Election  or  Appointment  of  County 
Superintendent. —  State  v.  Acton,  31  Mont.  37; 
Fordyce  v.   State.    115   Wis.  608. 

Women  Held  Eligible.  —  State  v.  Acton,  31 
Mont.  37:   Fordyce  -.  State,   115  Wis.  608. 

Provision  for  Appointment  in  Case  of  Vacancy. 

—  State  V.  Acton,   31    Mont.   27- 

3.  Term  of  Office,  —  State  v.  Acton,  31  Mont. 
Z7- 

4.  New  York  City  —  Statute  Protecting  from 
Removal  During  Good  Behavior  and  Competency. 

—  People    7'.    Board    of    Education,    174    N.    Y. 
169. 

6.  Compensation  of  County  Superintendents. — 
Wilson  V.  Fisher,  140  Cal.  188;  Piercy  v. 
Smith,  117  Ky.  990;  Chase  County  v.  Kelley, 
(Neb.  1903)  95  N.  W.  Rep.  865;  State  v.  Al- 
bright, 1 1  N.  Dak.  22 ;  Dickey  County  v.  Den- 
ning. (N.  Dak.  1905)  103  N.  W.  Rep.  422; 
Dickey  County  v.  Hicks,  (N.  Dak.  1905)  103 
N.  W.  Rep.  423. 


768 


Vol.  XXV. 


SCHOOLS. 


54-56 


54. 


note   I. 


56. 


c.  City  Superintendent. —  See  note  r. 

2.  Commissioners.  —  See  note  2. 

3.  Boards  of  Education.  —  Sec  notes  3,  4. 

4.  Directors,  Trustees,  etc.,  of  School  Districts  —  a.  Election. —  See 

Qualification  of  Voters.  —  See  note  2. 
Appointment  to  Fill  Vacancy.  —  See  notes  3,  5,  6, 

b.  Qualification.  — See  note  7. 

c.  Eligibility.  —See  note  i. 

d.  Term  of  Office.  —  See  note  5. 

f.  Powers  and  Duties  —  (i)  /;;  General.  —  See  notes  6,  7. 
(2)  Necessity  of  Corporate  Aetioti.  —  See  note  9. 


Allowance  for  Traveling  Expenses.  —  Henry  v. 
Thurston  County,  31    Wash.  638. 

54.  1.  City  Superintendent  -  Appointment  of 
Deputy.  —  A  city  superintendent  cannot  appoint 
a  deputy  to  act  for  him  as  ex  officio  member  of 
the  board,  but  may  appoint  deputies  to  assist 
him  in  his  duties.  Webster  v.  Board  of  Edu- 
cation, 140  Cal.  331. 

2.  Provision  for  School  Commissioners  for  Cities 
of  Designated  Size. —  Akerman  z'.  School  Com'rs, 
118   Ga.  334. 

3.  Provision  for  State  Boards  of  Education.  — 
Com.  -■.  Ginn,  (  Ky.  1905)  85  S.  W.  Rep.  688. 

Board  of  Education  Is  Public  Corporation.  — 
Cunningham  v.  Board  of  Education,  53  W.  Va. 
318. 

4.  City  Board  of  Education.  —  Chambers  v. 
Seiner,  i  Alaska  271  ;  Whitehead  z'.  Board  of 
Education,  (Mich.  1905)  102  X.  W.  Rep.  1028; 
Gunnison  r.  Board  of  Education,  176  N.  Y.  11  ; 
Board  of  Public  Education  v.  Ransley,  209  Pa. 
St.  51. 

«(•».  L  Election  of  City  Trustees  by  Mayor  and 
Council.  —  Schmohl  f.  Williams,  215  111.  63; 
State  V.  Ogan,  159  Ind.  119. 

Statute  Fixing  Time  of  Election.  —  State  v. 
Ogan,  159  Ind.  119;  Hillebrandt  t-.  Devine,  31 
Tex.  Civ.  App.  402. 

Where  the  Statute  Requires  a  Vote  to  Be  Taken 
Viva  Voce,  an  election  by  secret  ballot  is  void. 
Elliott  T.   Burke,    113   Ky.  479. 

Appointment  by  Legislature  Violating  Kequire- 
ment  of  Uniformity.  —  Ellis  f.  Greaves.  82  Miss. 
36. 

Regularity  of  Election  of  Trustees  Cannot  Be 
Attacked  Collaterally.  —  Boesch  -•.  Byrom,  (Tex. 
Civ.  App.  1904)  83  S.  W.  Rep.  18. 

Ratification  of  Irregular  Election.  —  Deaver  v. 
State.  27  Tex.  Civ.  .App.  453. 

Validity  of  Election  Without  Notice  or  Subse- 
quent Qualification.  —  See  Buchanan  v.  Graham, 
36   Tex.    Civ.    .\pp.    468. 

Election  Not  Void  Notwithstanding  Mistake  as 
to  Boundaries  of  District.  —  Boesch  ;•.  Ryrom, 
(Tex.  Civ.  App.   1004)   83  S.  W.  Rep.   18. 

Acts  of  De  Facto  Trustee  Valid.  —  Rnsell  v. 
Board  of  Education.  68  N.  J.  L.  498  :  State  v. 
Buchanan,  (Tex.  Civ.  .A.pp.  1904)  83  S.  W.  Rap. 
723.  ^ 

2.  Women  Held  Eligible  as  Voters.  —  State  v. 
Acton.  31    Mont.   37. 

Residence  Must  Be  Bona  Fide. —  Ball  v.  Cawood. 
(Ky.   IQ02)   67  S.  W.  Rep.  37. 

3.  Power  of  County  Superintendent  to  Appoint 
to  Fill   Vacancies. —  See    Shepherd    -•.    Common 

4  Supp.  E.  of  L. — 49  769 


76  S.  W.  Rep.  1084,  25  Ky. 


School  Dist.  No. 
L.  Rep.   1072. 

Appointment  to  Be  Made  by  County  Court.  — 
Click  T.   Sample,   y^  Ark.    194. 

Appointment  Before  Vacancy  Void.—  Shepherd 
V.  Gambill,  75  S.  W.  Rep.  223,  25  Ky.  L.  Rep. 
333. 

Vacancy  Filled  Only  at  Annual  Organization  of 
Board.  —  Com.  v.  Redder,  208  Pa.  St.  28. 

6.  Appointment  in  Writing  Required.  —  Shep- 
herd c'.  Common  School  Dist.  No.  2,  76  S,  W. 
Rep.   1084,  25   Ky.  L.  Rep.   1072. 

6.  Click  V.  Sample,  73  Ark.  194. 

7.  Qualification.  —  Click  v.  Sample,  73  Ark. 
194;  Buchanan  v.  Graham,  36  Tex.  Civ.  App. 
468. 

Ofl&ce  Not  Vacated  by  Failure  to  File  Oath.  - 
Click  -'.   Sample.   73   Ark.    194. 

56.  1.  Eligibility  in  General.  —  State  :■. 
Fasse,  (Mo.  App.  1903)  71  S.  W.  Rep.  745. 
See  also  State  v.  Van  Patten,  26  Nev.  273. 

6.  Holding  Over. —  Featherngill  v.  State.  33 
Ind.  App.  683;   Elliott  V.  Burke.   113   Ky.  479. 

Statute  Providing  for  Holding  Over  by  Person 
Appointed  to  Fill  Vacancy.—  See  Shepherd  v.  Gam- 
bill,  75  S.  W.  Rep.  223.  25  Ky.  L.  Rep.   7,7.3. 

6.  Powers  of  School  Trustees  Derived  from  Statute. 
—  Harris  v.  Kill,  108  111.  App.  305:  Silver  v. 
State  Board  of  Education,  (Ind.  App.  1904) 
72  N.  E.   Rep.  829. 

7.  Harris  v.  Kill.  108  111.  App.  305  ;  Silver 
t'.  State  Board  of  Education,  (Ind.  .App.  1904) 
72  N.  E.  Rep.  829;  Young  v.  Fountain  Inn 
Graded  School,  64  S.  Car.  131.  See  also  Wash- 
ington County  V.  Saltville  Land  Co.,  99  Va. 
640. 

Parish  School  Boards  in  Louisiana  have  no 
power  to  sell  the  timber  on  school  lands.  State 
f.    Stark.    I  I  1    I, a.    594. 

9.  Necessity  of  Corporate  Action.  —  Robinson 
7:  School  Directors.  96  111.  App.  604:  Lincoln 
School  Tp.  V.  American  School  Furniture  Co., 
31  Ind.  App.  40s;  Scott  V.  Pendley.  114  Ky! 
606:  State  V.  Lawrence,  178  Mo.  350:  Beck  v. 
Kerr.  75  N.  Y.  App.  Div.  173;  Moore  r.  School 
Dist.  No.  71.  II  Okla.  332:  Cunningham  v. 
Board  of  Education.  53  W.  Va.  318:  Caxton 
Co.  r.  School  Dist.  No.  5,  120  Wis.  374.  See 
also  Greenlees  v.  Picton  Public  School  Board, 
2  Ont.  L.  Rep.  387.  Compare  Leonard  v.  State! 
67   Neb.   633. 

Contract  of  President  of  Board  Held  Invalid.  — 
Moore  -■.  Leonard  Independent  School  Dist., 
(Tex.  Civ.  App.  1903)  74  S.  W.  Rep.  324. 

Contract  Signed   by  President    and  Secretary 


i»^*.»#^jf#vrrcoLi**::*ji 


5r-6i 


SCHOOLS. 


Vol.  XXV. 


57. 
58. 


59. 


60. 


61. 


M%jority  of  Votes  Controlling.  —  See  notes  2,3. 
See  note  i. 

(3)  Care  and  Management  of  Schools.  —  See  note  2. 

(4)  Power  to  Contract  —  (a)  In  General.  —  See  note  3. 
See  note  i. 

Limitations  as  to  Amount  of  Indebtedness  to  Be  Contracted.  —  See  note  2. 
(b)   Contracts  for  Supplies  or  Appendages  —  Supplies.  —  See  note  4. 

(e)  Contract  Between  Board  and  One  of  Its  Members.  —  See  note  lO. 

(f)  Ratification  of  Unauthorized  or  Informal  Contract.  —  See  note  1  I. 

(5)  Mandamus  to  Compel  Performance  of  Duty.  —  See  note  2. 
g.  Personal  Liability  —  (i)  On  Contract.  —  See  notes  8,  9. 


Valid.  —  Rand  rr.  Royal,  36  Wash.  420.  But 
see  Johnson  v.  School  Corp..    117   Iowa  319. 

Authorization  by  Board  Presumed  from  Signing 
by  Officers.  —  Mitchelltree  School  Tp.  v.  Hall 
(Ind.  App.  1903)  68  N.  E.  Rep.  919. 

Batification  of  Contract  with  Teacher.  —  See 
Cowley  V.  School  Dist.  No.  3,  130  Mich.  634,  in 
which  a  doctrine  contrary  to  that  of  the  first 
paragraph  of  the  original  note  is  held. 

Use  by  District  of  Furniture  or  Supplies  as 
Ratification  of  Informal  Contract.  —  Haney  School 
Furniture  Co.  v.  School  Dist.  No.  i,  133  Mich. 
241,  10  Detroit  Leg.  N.  135.  But  see  Caxton 
Co.  V.  School  Dist.  No.  5,  120  Wis.  374. 

Informal  Ratification  by  Board  of  Contract  for 
Supplies. —  Haney  School  Furniture  Co.  v. 
School  Dist.  No.  i,  133  Mich.  241,  10  Detroit 
Leg.  N.  135. 

Amendment  of  Certificate  of  Tax  Levy.  —  Indi- 
ana, etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  People,  201  111.  351. 

Contract  of  Committee  Valid  When  Ratified.  — 
Kraft  V.  Board  of  Education,  67  N.  J.  L.  512. 

Change  of  Contract  by  Secretary  —  Authoriza- 
tion Presumed. —  School  Dist.  No.  27  i'.  Wheat, 
(Ark.  1904)  78  S.  W.  Rep.  755. 

67.  2.  Presence  of  Entire  Board  Unnecessary. 
—  For  the  purchase  of  school  supplies  the 
Wisconsin  statute  requires  that  all  the  mem- 
bers of  the  board  be  present.  Caxton  Co.  f. 
School  Dist.  No.  5,  120  Wis.  374. 

Necessity  of  Clerk  to  Record  Proceedings.  — 
See  State  r.  Lawrence,  178  Mo.  350. 

3.  Necessity  of  Notice, —  Scott  v.  Pendley,  114 
Ky.  606 ;  Shepherd  v.  Gambill,  75  S.  W.  Rep. 
223,  25  Ky.  L.  Rep.  333  ;  Beck  v.  Kerr,  75  N. 
Y.  App.  Div.  173;  Cunningham  v.  Board  of 
Education,  53  W.  Va.  318. 

Want  of  Formal  Call  or  Notice  Held  Immaterial 
When  All  Are  Present. —  Hanna  7'.  Wright,  116 
Iowa  275;  Decker  r.  School  Dist.  No.  2,  loi 
Mo.  App.    IIS. 

Notice  Failing  to  Specify  Day  Insufficient.  — 
Shepherd  v.  Gambill,  75  S.  W.  Rep.  223,  25  Ky. 
L.  Rep.  333- 

.5§.  1.  Scott  V.  Pendley,  114  Ky.  606  (not- 
withstanding the  opinion  of  the  absent  member 
was  known). 

2.  Care  and  Management  of  Schools. —  Harris  z: 
Kill,  108  111.  App.  305;  Baggerly  v.  Lee.  (Ind. 
App.  1905)  73  N.  P..  Rep.  921  ;  Gunnison  f. 
Board  of  Education.  176  N.  Y.  11:  Sligh  v. 
Bowers,  62  S.  Car.  409  ;  Young  v.  Fountain  Inn 
Graded  School.  64  S.  Car.   131. 

Power  to  Close  Schools.  —  See  State  v.  Seely, 
163  Ind.  244. 

Right  to  Abandon  When  "  No  School  Indebted- 
ness" —  See  Hornbeck  v.  State,  33  Ind.  .App.  600. 


3.  Power  of  Board  to  Contract. —  Mingo  v.  Col- 
ored School  Dist.  A,  113  Ky.  475;  Sligh  v. 
Bowers,   62   S.   Car.   409. 

Contract  for  Services  of  Janitor  Valid.  —  Ober- 
dorfer  v.  Louisville  School  Board,  (Ky.  1905) 
85  S.  W.  Rep.  696. 

59.  1.  Burden  of  Proof. —  Martin  v.  Common 
School  Dist.  No.  61,  93  Minn.  409. 

2.  Limitations  as  to  Amount  of  Indebtedness 
to  Be  Contracted  by  Board. —  Baltimore,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  ■?'.  People,  195  111.  423;  Union  Nat.  Bank  v. 
Franklin  School  Tp..  31   Ind.  App.  699. 

Purchase  of  Supplies  or  Apparatus. —  If  supplies 
are  illegally  bought,  no  recovery  can  be  had  on 
quantum  meruit,  even  though  the  supplies  were 
necessary  and  used.  Union  Nat.  Bank  v.  Frank- 
lin School   Tp.,  31    Ind.  App.  699.. 

4.  Contracts  for  Supplies.  —  Haney  School  Fur- 
niture Co.  f.  School  Dist.  No.  i,  133  Mich. 
241,  10  Detroit  Leg.  N.  135;  Board  of  Public 
Education  v.  Ransley,  209  Pa.  St.  51. 

Furniture. —  Kraft  v.  Board  of  Education,  67 
N.  J.  L.  512. 

Maps  and  Charts.  —  Poling  v.  Board  of  Edu- 
cation, 50  W.  Va.  374. 

Heating  Apparatus.  —  Board  of  Education  v. 
National  Surety  Co.,  183  Mo.  166:  School  Dist. 
No.  3  V.  Western  Tube  Co.,  13  Wyo.  304.  See 
also  Wheeler  v.  Board  of  Control,  137  Mich. 
291. 

60.  10.  Contract  Between  Board  and  Member 
Held  Voidable.  —  Sec  State  r.  Fields.  131  Ala. 
201;    Miller    7'.  Sullivan,   32   Wash.    115. 

Contract  Between  Board  and  Wife  of  Member 
Void.— Nuckols  ?■.  I.yle.  8   Idaho   5S9. 

11.  Ratification  by  Acceptance  of  Benefits,  — 
\\'ashington  Academy  ?'.  Cruikshank.  (Supm. 
Ct.  Spec.  T.)   43  Misc.   (N.  Y. )    197. 

61.  2.  Enforcing  Performance  of  Duty  by 
Mandamus.  —  Akerman  •:•.  School  Cnm'rs.  iiR 
Ga.  334  :  Brooklyn  Teachers  Assoc,  v.  Board  of 
Education,  85  N.  Y.  App.  Div.  47,  affirmed  176 
N.  Y.  564  :  Poling  f.  Board  of  Education,  50 
W.  Va."3  74. 

8.  No  Personal  Liability  on  Contract  Made  Ex- 
pressly Binding  on  District. —  Hanna  t'.  Wright, 
I  I  6    Iowa   275. 

The  Board  Members  May  Be  Held  Liable  ai 
Sureties  though  not  primarily  liable  as  drawers. 
Gerniania  Banlc  r.  Trapnell,   118  Ga.  578. 

9.  Germania  Bank  v.  Trapnell,  118  Ga.  578; 
Ewin  f.  Independent  School  Dist.  No.  8,  10 
Idaho  102;  Oppenheimer  v.  Greencastle  School 
Tp.,  164  Ind.  99:  Hanna  v.  Wright,  116  Iowa 
275  ;  Warford  v.  Temple,  (Ky.  1903)  73  S.  W. 
Rep.  1023;  Cassopolis  First  Nat.  Bank  v.  Car- 
ter, (Mich.  1904)  loi  N.  W.  Rep.  585. 


Vol.  XXV. 


SCHOOLS. 


658  67 


•2,      (2)   In   Tort  —  (b)   Misappropriation  of  Funds.  —  See  notes  5,  6. 

h.   Removal  or  Vacaiio.n  oI'"  Omice. — See  notes  9,  10. 

63.  IX.  School  Funds  —  1.  In  General.  — -  Sec  note  4. 

64.  2.  Legislative  Control.  —  Sec  notes  i,  2. 

Appropriation  of  Fund  for  Schools  Other  than  Public  Schooli.  —  See  note  3. 

65.  3.  Apportionment.  —  Sec  note  i . 

66.  4.   Investment  —  Constitutional    Limitations    as    to  Character   of   Investment  and 
Security.  —  See  note  3. 

5.  Treasurer.  —  See  note  5. 

67.  See  note  i. 


62.  6.  Liability  for  Misappropriation  of  School 

Funds.  —  Fintu'y   f.   (jarner.    iio   Tcnn.   67. 
6.    i'^inney  v.  CJarner,  iio  Tenii.  67. 

9.  Where  the  Boundaries  Have  Been  Changed, 
district  trustees  are  imt  ousted  where  tlicy  live 
in  the  territory  embraced  within  their  districts 
as  rearranged.  Farley  v.  Gilbert,  72  S.  W.  Rep. 
1098,  24  Ky.  L.  Rep.  2109. 

10.  Members  Cannot  Be  Removed  "Without  Cause. 

—  Akernian  v.    School    Coin'rs,    118   (ia.   334. 

63.  4.  Income  from  School  Lands  or  from  In- 
vestment of  Proceeds  of  Sale. — ■  McCord  v.  Slavin, 
143  Cal.  3J5  :  State  v.  McMillan,  12  N.  Dak. 
280  ;  Webb  County  v.  School  Trustees,  95  Tex. 
131  ;   Mills  V.  Needham,   28  Tex.  Civ.  App.  547. 

Funds  Raised  by  Taxation.  —  Koelling  v.  Peo- 
ple. 196  111.  353;  Board  of  Education  v.  Public 
Library,  113  Ky.  234;  State  v.  Babcock,  87 
Minh.  234 ;  Dickson  v.  Burckmyer,  67  S.  Car. 
526  ;  Webb  County  v.  School  Trustees,  95  Tex. 
131  ;  Washington  County  v.  Saltville  Land  Co., 
99  Va.  640;   State  -■.  Hunter,  119  Wis.  450. 

Fines  and  Forfeitures.  —  Lexington  v.  Board 
of  Education,  65  S.  \V.  Rep.  827,  2t,  Ky.  L. 
Rep.  1663:  Parish  Board  of  Directors  v.  Heb- 
ert,  112  La.  467;  State  v.  Sams,  ( Xeb.  1904)  99 
X.  W.  Rep.  544  :  School  Dist.  Xo.  30  v.  School 
Dist..  63  Xeb.  44 :  School  Directors  v.  Ashe- 
ville,   137  X.  Car.  503. 

Proceeds  of  Liquor  Licenses. —  Chambers  v.  Sol- 
ner,  i  Alaska  271  ;  Steidl  f.  State,  63  Xeb. 
695;  State  V.  Sams,  (Xeb.  1904)  99  N.  W.  Rep. 
544- 

As  to  what  constitutes  license  money,  see 
State  -'.  Boyd,  63  Xeb.  829. 

Distribution  of  License  Money.  —  See  Kas  ;■. 
State.   63    Neb.   581. 

Tax  on  Foreign  Insurance  Companies  Not  School 
Fund.  —  Fuf|ua  :•.  Hager.  (Ky.  1905)  84  S.  W. 
Kcp.  325. 

School  Fund  Distinguished  from  Damages  Re- 
ceived for  Injuries  to  School  Property. —  See  Illi- 
nois Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  School  Trustees,  212  111. 
406. 

61.  1.  Legislative  Control  in  General.  — 
Washington  County  t'.  Saltville  Land  Co..  00 
\'a.  640. 

Statute  Permitting  District  Board  to  Use  Certain 
Percentage   of  Funds  in  Transportation  of  Pupils. 

—  School    Di^^t.    Xo.    3    f.    Atzciiweiler.   ^,7    K.in. 
600:    Xewcomb  f.    Rockport,    183    Mass.    74. 

Prohibition  Against  Spending  Principal  of  Fund. 
- — Chicago   7'.    Chicago.    207    111.    37. 

2.  Appropriation  of  School  Funds  to  Other  than 
School  Purnoses  Forbidden.  —  Chicago  :■.  Chi- 
cago, 207  111.  37  :  Board  of  Education  f.  Public 
Library.  113  Ky.  234:  State  v.  School  Com'rs. 
94  Md.  334;  State  V.  McMillan,  12  N.  Dak.  280. 


3.  Public  Library.  —  No  part  of  the  school 
tax  can  lawfully  be  expended  in  maintaining  a 
public  library  to  which  the  children  of  the 
schools  have  access  only  as  part  of  the  public. 
Board  of  Education  v.  Public  Library,  113  Ky 
234- 

Only  Schools  to  Which  All  Children  Between 
Five  and  Eighteen  Years  Old  Are  Admitted  can 
share  in  the  Neiv  Jersey  fund  for  the  support 
of  public  free  schools.  Rutgers  College  v.  Mor- 
gan, 70  N.  J.  L.  460. 

65.  1.  Apportionment  of  School  Funds.  — 
Sunol  School  Dist.  v.  Chii)nian,  138  Cal.  251; 
Elizabethtown  Dist.  Public  Schools  v.  Morris, 
71  S.  W.  Rep.  654,  24  Ky.  L.  Rep.  1420  ;  Shriver 
V.  Herring,  97  Md.  19;  Fiske  v.  Huntington, 
179  Mass.  S7I  ;  Kas  v.  State,  63  Xeb.  581  ; 
Board  of  Education  v.  Kingfisher  County,  14 
Okla.   222. 

Apportionment  According  to  School  Census.  — 
State  V.  Wedge,  2y  Xev.  61. 

Statute  Authorizing  Equal  Distribution  Held 
Unconstitutional.  —  Elliott  v.  Burke.  113  Ky. 
479- 

Statutory  Provision  for  Apportionment  of  Rail- 
road Tax  Between  White  and  Colored  Schools.  — 
Elizabethtown  Dist.  Public  Schools  v.  Morris, 
71    S.  W.  Rep.  654.  24   Ky.  L.   Rep.    1420. 

Apportionment  by  County  Superintendent.  — 
Oge  V.  Froboese.  (Tex.  Civ.  App.  1902)  66  S. 
W.  Rep.  688 ;  Wester  v.  Oge,  29  Tex.  Civ.  .\pp. 
615. 

"Teachers'  Fund,"  "Incidental  Fund,"  and 
"Building  Fund." — State  v.  District  School 
Board,  97  Mo.  .App.  613;  Livesay  v.  Whitney, 
107   -Mo.  App.  475. 

66.  3.  Constitutional  Provision  Prohibiting 
Investment  Except  in  Designated  Government  or 
Public  Securities.  —  State  v.  Stuefcr.  66  Xeb. 
381:    State   V.    McMillan,    12   X.    Dak.    280. 

Prohibition  of  Loan  to  Other  Funds,  —  A  de- 
posit of  the  funds  in  a  bank  by  the  treasurer  in 
his  representative  capacity  is  not  a  loan.  Hunt 
V.   Hopley,    120   Iowa  695. 

5.  District  Treasurer.  —  German  r.  Highland 
Park   School   Dist.  Xo.  46.    117   Ky.  907. 

City  Treasurer  as  Custodian  of  Fund. —  Times 
Pub.   Co.  V.   White.   2^   R.    I.   3.U- 

City  Treasurer  ex-Officio  Treasurer  of  School 
District.  — Com.     f.     Middlcton,     21a     Pa.     St. 

67.  1.  Where  the  Statute  Requires  that  the 
Treasurer  "  Shall  Hold  '  All  Moneys,  etc.,  he  is 
not  precluded  from  depositing  them  in  a  solv- 
ent  bank.      Hunt  v.   Hopley.    120   Iowa  695. 

Mandamus  to  Compel  Treasurer  to  Pay  Orders 
Properly  Drawn  and  Signed.  —  See  Leonard  v. 
State.   67    Xeb.   635  ;    Com.   v.  Johnson,    24   Pa, 


771 


ji^^»#w»j,«#vrr«Krjo:i:^.»**.»A 


67  82 


SCHOOLS  -SEAM. 


Vol.  XXV. 


67.      Treasurer's  Bond.         See  notes  2,  3. 


69.     SCRAP  STEEL.  —  See  note  4. 
7  I .     SEABOARD.  —  See  note  4. 
SEALED.  —  See  note  6. 

Super.  Ct.  490 ;  Times  Pub.  Co.  v.  White,  22, 
R.  I.  334- 

Where  the  Duty  Sought  to  Be  Enforced  Lies 
upon  the  Treasurer  Himself,  and  not  upon  his 
successor  in  office,  mandamus  will  lie  though 
the  term  of  office  has  expired.  Kas  v.  State, 
63   Neb.  581. 

67.  2.  Bond  Required  of  Treasurer.  —  German 
v.  Highland  Park  School  Dist.  No.  46,  117  Ky. 
907;    Smith  V.  Jones,    136   Mich.   532. 

3.  Liability  on  Bond.  —  Smith  t-.  Jones,  136 
Mich.   532. 

Treasurer  Protected  in  Payments  on  Warrants 
of  County  Superintendent.  —  Oge  v.  Froboese, 
(Tex.  Civ.  App.  1902)  66  S.  W.  Rep.  688. 

A  Township  Is  Liable  to  a  school  district  for 


school  moneys  lost  through  the  defalcation  of 
the  township  treasurer.  Smith  v.  Jones,  136 
Mich.  532. 

69.  4.  Busheling  .scrap  consists  of  small 
pieces  of  wrought  iron  and  steel.  Lichtenstein 
V.  Rabolinsky,  98  X.  Y.  App.  Div.  516. 

71.  4.  Atlantic  Seaboard.  —  See  American 
Fisheries  Co.  !■.  Lennen,  (C.  C.  A.)  130  Fed. 
Rep.  534,  affirming  116  Fed.  Rep.  217,  stated  in 
the  original  note. 

6.  Sealed,  as  used  in  the  English  Intoxicating 
Liquor  Act.  means  "  secured  with  any  substance 
without  the  destruction  of  which  the  cork,  plug, 
or  stopper  cannot  be  withdrawn."  Mitchell  v. 
Crawshaw,   (1903)    i    K.  B.  701. 


74.    II.  Nature  and  Sufficiency 

See  note  5 


SEALS. 

By  E.  C.  Ellsbree. 

2.  Modern  Rule 


76. 

note  4. 
78. 

79. 

80. 


Recital  in  Instrument 


3.  Questions  of  Law  and  Fact.  —  .^v,*.  nwt^  j. 

III.  Presumption  as  to  Sealing  —  1.  In  General. 
2.  Presumption  of  Proper  Seal.  —  See  note  i. 

IV.  Affixing  Seal  Unnecessarily.  —  See  note  4 

V.  Statutory  Regulations.  —  See  note  7. 


In  General.  — 
(2)  When  No  Seal  Is  Affixed.  —  See 
See  note 


See  note  7. 


82.     SEAM.  —  See  note  4. 

74.  5.  "  L.  S."  —  Hazleton  Nat.  Bank  v. 
Kintz,  24  Pa.  Super.  Ct.  456. 

76.  4.  Mere  Recital.  —  Davis  v.  Bingham, 
(Supni.  Ct.  App.  T.)  30  Misc.   (N.  Y.)   299. 

78.  3.  Brown  v.  Commercial  F.  Ins.  Co..  21 
App.   Cas.    (D.  C.)   325. 

7.  A  Failure  of  the  Record  to  Show  a  Seal  is  not 
affirmative  evidence  of  the  absence  of  a  seal 
when  the  record  was  made.  Dana  f.  Jones.  91 
N.  Y.  App.  Div.  496. 

79.  1.  Presumption  as  to  Sufficiency. —  Collier 
V.  Alexander.   142  Ala.  422. 


Corporate  Seal.  —  Kirkpatrick  v.  Eastern  Mill- 
ing, etc..  Co.,    135   Fed.   Rep.   144.         ^ 

4.  Seal  as  Surplusage.  —  Hartnett  v.  Baker,  4 
Penn.   (Del.)  431. 

80.  7.  Daniel  v.  Garner.  71  Ark.  484:  J. 
B.   Streetcr.  Jr.   Co.  r.  Janu.  90   Minn.   393. 

82.  4.  In  Geology  a  Thin  Layer  or  Stratum 
of  Rock  is  called  2.  ^cam.  The  same  term  is 
applied  to  coal.  "  Vein  of  coal."  "  coal  lied,"  and 
coal  seam  are  used  as  equivalent  terms.  Chap- 
man V.  Mill  Creek,  etc..  Co.,  54  W.  Va.  193. 


772 


1-23 


SA  WMILL  —  SCHOOLS. 


Vol.  XXV. 


SAWMILL. 

1.  I.  Term  Sawmill  Does  Not  Include 
Shed  Covering  Mill.  —  Alexander  v.  Beeknian 
Lumber  Co.,  78  Ark.   i6<),  95  S.  W.  449. 

SCHEDULE. 

2.  3.  "The  Term  'Schedule'  Implies 
Something  Written,  and  when  used  with  refer- 
ence to  a  train  implies  that  its  operation  is 
governed  by  a  rule,  rather  than  a  particular 
direction  or  agreement."  Draper  v.  Evansville, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  165  Ind.  117,  74  N.  E.  889. 

SCHOOLS. 

8.  I.  Harris  -'.  Draper,  (Supm.  Ct.  Spec. 
T.)  58  iMisc.  (N.  Y.)  297,  109  N.  Y.  Supp.  983. 

2.  Smith  V.  Simmons,  (Ky.  1908)  no  S.  W. 
336  ;  Board  of  Education  v.  Dick,  70  Kan.  434, 
78  Pac.  812,  quoting  25  Am.  and  Eng.  Encyc. 
OF  Law   (2d  ed.)   8. 

3.  Com.  Connecticut  Valley  St.  R.  Co.,  (Mass. 
1907)  82  N.  E.  19. 

5.  Board  of  Education  v.  Hyatt,  (Cal.  1907) 
93  Pac.  117. 

6.  State  V.  Bryan,  50  Fla.  293,  39  So.  929. 

7.  Kester  -■.  School  Dist.  No.  34,  (Wash. 
1907)   93   Pac.  907. 

County  Superintendent  Not  Empowered  to 
Antedate  Teacher's  Certificate.  —  Van  Dorn 
V.  Anderson,  2iq  111.  z^-  "6  N.  W.  53. 

9.  2.  Van  Dorn  v.  Anderson,  219  111.  32,  76 
N.  E.  53. 

11.  6.  Brown  r.  Smith,  (Ark.  1907)  106  S. 
W.  679. 

12.  8.  Denison  v.  Vinalhaven,  100  Me.  136, 
60  Atl.  798;  Drew  -■.  Board  of  Education,  146 
Mich.  64,  109  N.  W.  39;  Morris  v.  Board  of 
Education,  (Supm.  Ct.  App.  T.)  54  Misc.  (N. 
Y.)  605,  104  N.  Y.  Supp.  979. 

13.  1.  School  Dist.  No.  23  v.  Ozmer,  81 
Ark.  194,  98  S.  W.  974. 

2.  School  District  No.  68  r.  .Alien,  83  .Ark. 
491,   104  S.  W .   I7-- 

14.  I.  Name  of  Teacher  May  Be  Signed 
by  Authorized  Third  Party.  —  Turner  -•. 
Hampton,  (  Ky.  1906)  97  S.  W.  761. 

7.  A  Contract  for  a  Teacher's  Services  at 
the  beginning  of  the  second  term  at  the  rate  of 
the  annual  salary  is  presumed  to  cease  at  the 
end  of  the  school  year.  Denison  v.  Vinalhaven, 
too  Me.   136,  60  Atl.  798- 

15.  3.  State  V.  Cartwright,  122  Mo.  .App. 
257,  99  S.  W.  48- 

4.  Southern  Industrial  Institute  v.  Hellier, 
142  Ala.   686.   T,Q   So.    163. 

5.  A  Receipt  in  Full  for  Salary  for  services 
rendered  is  a  waiver  of  any  claim  for  salary 
attached  to  a  different  position.  Sheehan  v. 
Board  of  Education,  120  N.  Y.  App.  Div.  557, 
104  N.  Y.  Supp.  1002. 

6.  Hoefling  7-.  Board  of  Education.  120  N. 
Y.  App.  Div.  545.  104  N.  Y.  Supp.  941  :  Bever- 
stock  T'.  Board  of  Education,  75  Ohio  St.  144, 
78  N.  E.  :oo7. 

16.  8.  People  v.  Board  of  Education.  104 
N.  Y.  App.  Div.  162,  93  N.  Y.  Suop.  300:  Gren- 
don  V.  Board  of  Education,  114  N.  Y.  App.  Div. 
759,  100  N.  Y.  Supp.  2^7.  :  Moore  v.  Board  of 
Education,  121  N.  Y.  App.  Div.  862,  106  N.  Y. 
Supp.  983. 


10.  Barthel  v.  Board  of  Education,  (Cal. 
1908)  95  Pac.  892;  O'Connor  v.  Hendrick,  184 
N.  Y.  421,  77  N.  E.  612  ;  O'Connor  v.  Hendrick, 
100   N.   V.  .\i>p.   Div.   ,^,6i,  ')6   N.   V.   Supp.    161. 

Reasons  for  Teacher's  Dismissal  Must  Be 
Disclosed.  —  Underwood  v.  County  School 
Com'rs,   103  Ind.   181,  63  Atl.  221. 

11.  Miller  v.  Harvey,  215  Pa.  St.  103,  64  Atl. 
330. 

Status  of  Teacher  on  Consolidation  of 
Municipalities. —  People  v.  Board  of  Educa- 
tion. 106  X.  Y.  -App.  Div.  101,94  N.Y.  Supp.  61. 

17.  4.  Bradley  v.  Board  of  Education,  i 
Cal.  App.  212,  81  Pac.  1036;  Turner  v.  Hamp- 
ton, (Ky.  1906)  97  S.  W.  761  ;  Bogert  v.  Board 
of  Education,  (Supm.  Ct.  Tr.  T.)  44  Misc.  (N. 
Y.)   10,  89  N.  V.  Supp.  7:^7. 

8.   Stone  r.  Fritts,   (Ind.   1907)   82  N.   E.  792. 

Making  Temporary  License  Permanent.  — 
People  z\  Board  of  Education,  106  N.  Y.  App. 
Div.    loi,  94  N.  Y.  Supp.  6i. 

18.  4.  Shaul  V.  Board  of  Education,  108 
N.  Y.  App.  Div.  19,  95  N.  Y.  Supp.  479. 

19.  6.  Hitchens  v.  School  Dist.  No.  180,  5 
Penn.   (Del.)   325,  62  Atl.  897. 

20.  2.  Underwood  '■.  County  School  Com'rs, 
103  Md.  181.  63  Atl.  221. 

21.  I.  Injunction  Is  the  Remedy  where  a 
teacher  under  contract  is  refused  permission  to 
teach.  Turner  7\  Hamilton,  ( Ky.  1906)  97  S. 
W.    761. 

22.  1.  Underwood  v.  County  School  Com'rs, 
103  Md.   181,  63  Atl.  221. 

2.  Morse  i\  Ashley,  193  Mass.  294,  79  N.  E. 
481. 

3.  Ireland  v.  Barnhart.  165  Ind.  377,  75  N. 
E.  872  ;  Ricker  Classical  Institute  v.  Mapleton, 
loi  Me.  553,  64  Atl.  948;  State  v.  Selleck, 
(Neb.  1906)  107  N.  W.  1022;  New  Hampton 
Institution  v.  Northwood  School  Dist.,  ( N.  H. 
1907)  68  Atl.  538:  Town  Dist.  r.  Town  Dist., 
78  Vt.  23,  61  Atl.  471  :  Walliiigford  i'.  Claren- 
don.   (\'t.    1008)   60  .Atl.   734. 

The  Abandonment  of  a  School  District  does 
not  impose  upon  a  school  board  the  duty  to 
furnish  free  transportation  to  another  school 
district.  Nelson  7:  State.  168  Ind.  491,  81  N. 
E.  4S6. 

"  Domicil  "  Not  Intended  as  Residence.  — 
People  f.  Hcndrickson.  ( Sujim.  Ct.  Spec.  T.) 
54   Misc.   (X.   \.)   337.   104   X.   V.  Supp.   122. 

Physical  Presence  of  Pupil  Does  Not  in 
Itself  Constitute  "  Residence."  —  Com.  z-. 
Wenner,  211  Pa.  St.  637,  61  .Atl.  247. 

5.  State  V.  Bryan.  50  Fla.  293,  39  So.  929 ; 
Richardson  f.  Board  of  Education,  72  Kan.  629, 
84  Pac.  538 :  Rowles  7-.  Board  of  Education, 
(Kan.  1907)  91  Pac.  88;  Berea  College  7'.  Com., 
(Ky.  1906)  94  S.  W.  623:  Cross  v.  Walton 
Graded  Common  School  Dist.,  (Ky.  1905)  89 
S.  W.  506:  State  7'.  Cartwright.  122  Mo.  App. 
257.  90  S.  W.  48:  Lowery  7-.  Graded  School 
Trustees.  140  N.  Car.  ,-i:^,  52  S.  E.  267. 

23.  2.  State  v.  Hall.  (N.  H.  1906)  64  Atl. 
1102:  Com.  7'.  Connecticut  Valley  St.  R.  Co., 
(Mass.  1907)  82  N.  E.  10. 

3.  Hammond  7'.  Hyde  Park,  (Mass.  1907)  80 
N.  E.  650;  Stull  V.  Reber.  215  Pa.  St.  156,  64 
.Atl.  419:  Com.  7'.  Rowe.  218  Pa.  St.  168,  67  Atl. 
S6. 

5.  State  7'.  Board  of  Education,  76  Ohio  St. 
297,  81  N.  E.  568. 


X718 


ij!^.*#w»jFA»*'tf'<rj«:ct;*:*;*^»»^ 


Vol.  XXV. 


SCHOOLS. 


iS4-41 


24.  I.  Auten  v.  Special  School  Dist.,  83 
Ark.  431,  104  S.  W.  130. 

4,  State  V.    District   Board,    (Wis.    igo8)    116 

N.    W.    2Z2. 

25.  5.  Cross  V.  Walton  Graded  Common 
School,  (Ky.  1908)  no  S.  W.  346;  Vermillion 
V.  State,  (Neb.  1907)  no  N.  W.  736;  Wayland 
V.  Board  of  School  Directors,  43  Wash.  441,  86 
Pac.  642;  State  v.  District  Board,  (Wis.  1908; 
116  N.  W.  232. 

27.  2.  McCaskill  v.  Bower,  126  Ga.  341,  54 
S.  E.  942 ;  Cross  v.  Walton  Graded  Common 
School  Dist,  (Ky.  1905)  89  S.  W.  506. 

g.  Kinzer  v.  Independent  School  Dist.,  129 
Iowa  441,  105  N.  W.  686. 

29.  4.  Burton  v.  Maynard,  (Ky.  1907)  105 
S.  W.  115;  Harley  v.  Lindemann,  129  Wis. 
514,  109  N.  W.  570. 

5.  B.    F.    Johnson    Pub.    Co.    v.    Com.,    (Ky. 

1906)  97  S.  W.  749. 

30.  3.  McNees  v.  School  Tp.,  133  Iowa  120, 
no  N.  W.  325;  Rand  v.  Turner,  (Ky.  1906) 
97  S.  W.  643  ;  Graziani  v.  Com.,  (Ky.  1906)  97 
S.  W.  409. 

7.  O'Connor  v.  Hendrick,  109  N.  Y.  App. 
Div.  361,  96  N.  Y.  Supp.  161.  But  see  Church 
V.  Bullock,   (Tex.   1908)    109  S.  W.   115. 

31.  2.  Smith  V.  Robersonville  Graded 
School,  141   N.  Car.   143,  53  S.  E.  524. 

A  School  Corporation  or  Board  of  School 
Trustees  is  not  a  "  corporation  "  in  the  sense 
that  its  affairs  may  be  investigated  by  the  city 
council  under  a  statute  authorizing  the  council 
to  investigate  corporate  affairs.  Agar  v.  Pagin, 
39  Ind.  App.  567,  79  N.  E.  379. 

School  District  a  Public  Corporation.  — 
School  Dist.  No.  2  v.  Pace,   113  Mo.  App.   134, 

87  S.  W.  580. 

5.  Los  Angeles  City  School  Dist.  v.  Long- 
den,  148  Cal.  380,  83  Pac.  296;  North  Troy 
Graded  School  Dist.  v.  Troy,  80  Vt.  16,  66  Atl. 
1033- 

32.  2.  Stone  v.  Fritts,  (Ind.  1907)  82  N.  E. 
792;    Rowles    V.    Board    of    Education,    (Kan. 

1907)  91  Pac.  88;  State  v.  McClain,  187  Mo. 
409,  86  S.  W.   135;   State  v.  Gill,   190  Mo.   yg, 

88  S.  W.  628;  Evers  v.  Hudson,  (Mont.  1907) 
92  Pac.  462  ;  Howe  v.  Board  of  Education,  72 
N.  J.  L.  158,  60  Atl.  518:  Smith  v.  Roberson- 
ville Graded  School,  141  N.  Car.  143,  53  S.  E. 
524  ;  Boyce  v.  Board  of  Education,  76  Ohio  St. 
365,  81  N.  E.  437;  Malone  v.  Williams,  118 
Tenn.  390,  103  S.  W.  798. 

4.  Mouser  v.  Spaulding,  (Ky.  1906)  96  S.  W. 
882. 

5.  Bloomquist  v.  Washington  County,  loi 
Minn.  163,  112  N.  W.  253;  State  v.  Board  of 
Education,  760  Ohio  St.  297,  81  N.  E.  568; 
Wilsey    v.    Cornwall,    40    Wash.    250,    82    Pac. 

33.  2.  Contra    in    Indiana,  —  Ireland    v. 

Barnhart,   165   Ind.  377,  75  N.  E.  872. 

3.  The  Domicil  of  a  Child  is  prima  facie 
that  of  its  parent  in  computing  the  census  of  a 
school  district.  Gividen  v.  Common  School 
Dist.  No.  54,  (Ky.  1907)   102  S.  W.  1191. 

6.  Lowery  v.  Graded  School  Trustees,  140  N. 
Car.  33,  52  S.  E.  267. 

34.  1.  School  Dist.  No.  21  v.  Freemont 
County,   IS  Wyo.  73,  86  Pac.  24. 

3.  Bancroft  v.  Randall,  4  Cal.  App.  306,  87 
Pac.  805. 

r 


4.  Independent  School  Dist.  No.  2  v.  Dis- 
trict No.  27,  (S.  Dak.   1906)   106  N.  W.  302. 

5.  Bourland  v.  Snyder,  224  111.  478,  79  N.  E. 
568;  State  V.  Cummins,   114  Mo.  App.  93,  89  S. 

w.  7.4. 

A  Special  School  District  cannot  be  formed 
out  of  any  part  of  a  centralized  district  of  a 
township.  Fulks  v.  Wright,  72  Ohio  St.  547,  75 
N.  E.  55. 

The  Territory  of  a  Special  School  District 
cannot  be  taken  either  in  whole  or  in  part  to 
form  a  new  special  school  district.  Scott  v. 
McCullogh,  72  Ohio  St.  S38,  75  N.  E.  52. 

Where  the  Statute  Provides  that  No  Altera- 
tion of  school  districts  shall  be  affected  unless 
notice  in  writing  shall  be  given,  a  notice  in 
writing  to  the  chairman  of  each  board  is  suffi- 
cient. Gividen  v.  Common  School  Dist.  No.  54, 
(Ky.  1907)  102  S.  W.  1191. 

35.  6.  School  Dist.  No.  13  v.  County 
Superintendent  of  Public  Schools,  36  Colo.  393, 
85  Pac.  696 ;  First  School  Dist.  v.  Eighth 
School  Dist.,  78  Conn.  71,  61  Atl.  234;  Eddy  v. 
Omaha,  72  Neb.  550,  103  N.  W.  692. 

36.  I,  Mooney  v.  Tulare  County,  2  Cal. 
App.  65.  83  Pac.  165. 

2.  Gardner  v.  State,  (Kan.  1908)  95  Pac.  588 
Where  Not  All  Districts  Vote  in  Favor  of 

Change.  —  State  v.   McClain,    1S7   Mo.   409,   86 
S.  W.   135- 

3.  Bourland  v.  Snyder,  224  111.  478.  70  N.  E. 
£68;  School  Dist.  No.  2  v.  Pace,  113  Mo.  App. 
134.  87  S.  W.  s8o. 

37.  I.  Molyneaux  v.  Molyneaux,  130  Iowa 
100,  106  N.  W.  370;  State  z\  Job,  205  Mo.  1, 
103  S.  W.  493;  Lowrance  v.  Schwab,  (Tex. 
Civ.  App.  1907)   10 1  S.  W.  840. 

Description  of  Territory  Voted  upon.  — 
Molyneaux  ?■.  Molyneaux,  130  Iowa  100,  106 
N.  W.  370. 

2.  Calahan  v.  Handsaker,  133  Iowa  622,  in 
N.  W.  22;  School  District  No.  2  v.  Pace,  113 
Mo.  App.  134,  87  S.  W.  580;  State  v.  Job,  205 
Mo.  T,  103  S.  W.  493. 

38.  I.  Schmohl  v.  Williams,  215  111.  63,  74 
N.  E.  75;  Black  V.  Early,  2(jg  Mo.  281,  106  S. 
W.  1014. 

3.  State  7'.  Job,  205  Mo.   i,  103  S.  W.  493. 

40.  I.  Town  Charged  with  School  Debts 
on  Abolition  of  School  District.  —  Winsted 
Sav.  Bank  v.  New  Hartford.  78  Conn.  319,  62 
Atl.  81. 

4.  Manahan  v.  Adams  County.  (Neb.  1906) 
no  N.  W.  86n. 

Statute  Does  Not  Prevent  Agreement  be- 
tween Districts  Regarding  Apportionment.  — 
Rouseville  Rnrnu.yh  Sc'iool  Dist.  v.  Cornplanter 
Tp.  School  Dist..  29  Pa.  Suikt.  Ct.  214;  Ever- 
son  Borough,  31   Pa.  Super.  Ct.  170. 

5.  Riggs  V.  Polk  County,  (Oregon  1908)  95 
Pac.  5. 

41.  4.  A  Majority  of  a  School  Board 
Which  Has  Ordered  an  Election,  and  given 
notice  thereof,  on  petition  of  the  voters  of  a 
district,  cannot  thereafter  order  a  withdrawal 
of  the  notice  of  election.  State  v.  Gill,  190 
Mo.  79.  88  S.  W.  628. 

6.  Thompson  v.  School  Trustees.  218  111.  S40, 
75  N.  E.  1048;  Calahan  v.  Handsaker,  133 
Iowa  622,  I  n  N.  W.  22 :  Amort  v.  School  Dist. 
No.  80,  .18  Oregon  522,  8?  Pac.  761  :  Regan  v. 
School  Dist.  No.  25,  44  Wash.  3^3.  87  Pac.  82S, 


49-54 


SCHOOLS. 


Vol.  XXV. 


Notice  Immaterial  Where  Directors  At- 
tended Meeting.  —  School  Dist.  No.  68  v. 
Allen,  83  Ark.  491,  104  S.  W.   172. 

7.  Schniutz  V.  Special  School  Dist.,  78  Ark. 
118,  95  S.  W.  438:  State  v.  Green,  131  Wis. 
324,  III   N.  W.  5ig. 

42.  I.  Arbuckle  v.  McKinney,  (Ky.  1906) 
97  S.  W.  408;  Evers  v.  Hudson,  (Mont.  1907) 
92  Pac.  462;  State  v.  Green,  131  Wis.  324,  1 1 1' 
N.  W.  519- 

Botindaries  Other  than  Those  Stated  in 
a  petition  may  be  accepted  by  a  meeting  called 
for  the  purpose  of  organizing  a  school  dis- 
trict. Wilsey  v.  Cornwall,  40  Wash.  250,  82 
Pac.  303. 

2.  Kinney  v.  Howard,  133  Iowa  94,  no  N. 
W.  282. 

g.  Kinney  v.  Howard,  133  Iowa  94,  no  N. 
W.  282. 

Ballot  Must  State  Question  to  Be  Voted 
upon. —  Calahan  v.  Handsakcr,  133  Iowa  622, 
III   N.  W.  22. 

43.  3.  Arbuckle  v.  McKinney,  (Ky.  1906) 
97  S.  W.  408. 

4.  The  Record  of  the  Meeting  Should  Be 
Construed  so  as  to  give  effect  to  the  manifest 
intention  of  the  voters.  Quisenberry  v.  School 
Dist.  No.  6,  75  Neb.  47.   105  N.  W.  982. 

5.  Records  May  Be  Attacked  for  Fraud  or 
Mistake  Only.  —  Creech  t-.  Common  School 
Dist.  No.  15,   (Ky.  1907)    102  S.  W.  804. 

The  Recording  of  a  Contract  not  made  by 
the  directors  as  a  board  does  not  constitute  a 
ratification.  Pugh  v.  School  Dist.  No.  5,  114 
Mo.  App.  688,  91  S.  W.  471- 

6.  State  V.  Cahill,  131  Iowa  155,  105  N.  W. 
691;  Kinney  v.  Howard,  133  Iowa  94,  iio  N. 
W.  282. 

9.  Samson  v.  Grand  Isle,  78  Vt.  383,  63  Atl. 
180;  School  Dist.  No.  3  v.  Western  Tube  Co., 
13  Wyo.  304.  80  Pac.  155. 

44.  2.  People  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  223 
111.  448,  79  N.  E.  151  :  R.  Connor  Co.  v.  Olson, 
(Wis.  1908)    115  N.  W.  811. 

Contracts  to  Employ  Critic  Teachers  Not 
Authorized  by  Statute.  —  I.indblad  v.  Board 
of  Education,  221   111.  261,  y~  N.  E.  450. 

3.  Los  Angeles  City  School  Dist.  v.  Lohk- 
den,  148  Cal.  380,  83  Pac.  246;  People  v.  Pe- 
oria, etc.,  R.  Co.,  216  111.  221,  74  N.  E.  734: 
Black  V.  Early,  208  Mo.  281,  106  S.  W.  10 f4: 
Cox  V.  Pitt  County,  (N.  Car.  1908)  60  S.  E. 
516;  McLeod  V.  Carthage,  (N.  Car.  1908)  61  S. 
E.  60s. 

45.  3.  Clarke  v.  School  Dist.  No.  16.  84 
Ark.  516,  106  S.  W.  677:  Union  Free  School 
Dist.  No.  I  V.  Glen  Park,  109  N.  Y.  .-\pp.  Div. 
414,  g6  N.  Y.  Supp.  428. 

5.  Witnesses  Before  Board  of  Arbitration 
Need  Not  Take  Oath.  —  State  :■.  Job,  205  Mo. 

I.    103   S.   W.   493. 

46.  3.  Tefft  V.  Lewis,  27  R.  I.  9,  60  Atl.  243. 
5.  Bancroft   v.    Randall,   4   Cal.    App.    306,   87 

Pac.  805:  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  People.  22% 
111.  155.  7Q  N.  E.  664. 

Trustees  Must  Confer  with  Advisory  Board 
on  Building  School.  —  .Advisory  Board  v.  State, 
164  Ind.  295,  72,  N.  E.  700  ;  Lincoln  School  To. 
V.  L'nion  Trust  Co.,  36  Ind.  App.  113,  74  N.  E. 
272;  Brooks  V.  School  Dist.,  73  N.  H.  263,  61 
Atl.   127. 

Power  Is  Vested  in  the  School  Directors 


to  make  terms  to  build  where  a  schoolhouse 
has  been  authorized  by  a  vote  of  the  people  and 
the  price  of  the  building  was  not  determined 
by  a  vote.  People  v.  Peoria,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  216 
111.  221,  74  N.  E.  734- 

47.  I.  Board  of  Education  v.  Montclair, 
(N.  J.  1908)  68  Atl.  795. 

48.  1.  People  v.  Peoria,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  216 
111.  221,  74  N.  E.  734. 

3.  Jacobson   v.   Board    of   Education,    (N.    J. 

1906)  64  Atl.  609;  School  Dist.  No.  3  v.  West- 
ern Tube  Co.,  13  Wyo.  304,  80  Pac.  155. 

6.  Richards  v.  School  Tp.,  132  Iowa  612,  109 
N.  W.  1093;  Denison  v.  Vinalhaven,  100  Me. 
136,  60  Atl.  798;  School  Dist.  No.  3  v.  Western 
Tube  Co.,  13  Wyo.  304,  80  Pac.  155. 

49.  2.  School  Dist.  No.  ji  v.  Overholser, 
17  Okla.  147,  87  Pac.  665. 

4.  Baggerly  v.  Lea,  37  Ind.  App.  139,  73  N. 
E.  921. 

50.  7.  Thompson  v.  School  Trustees,  218 
111.  540,  75  N.  E.  1048;  McMahon  v.  School 
Dist.  No.  66,  (Neb.  1907)  113  N.  W.  1046; 
Petersburg  School  Dist.  v.  Peterson,  14  N.  Dak. 
344,  103  N.  W.  756;  Stayton  v.  Butchee,  (Okla. 
1905)  82  Pac.  726;  Nichols  v.  Board  of  Di- 
rectors of  School  Dist.  No.    10,  39  Wash.   137, 

81  Pac.  325. 

A  Schoolhouse  Erected  on  Leased  Land  is 
the  property  of  the  school  district  and  may  be 
removed  within  a  reasonable  time  after  the 
termination  of  the  tenancy.  Hayward  v.  School 
Dist.  No.  9,  139  Mich.  539,  102  N.  W.  999. 

8.  Independent  School  Dist.  v.  McClure, 
(Iowa  1907)   T13  N.  W.  554. 

51.  6.  Stayton  v.  Butchel,  (Okla.  1905)  82 
Pac.  726. 

52.  2.  Du  Four  v.  State  Superintendent  of 
Public  Instruction,  72  N.  J.  L.  371,  61  Atl.  258; 
O'Connor  v.  Hendrick,  184  N.  Y.  421,  77  N.  E. 
612. 

4.  Van  Dyke  v.  School  Dist.  No.  77,  43 
Wash.   235,   86   Pac.  402. 

5.  Rand  v.  Turner,  (Ky.  1906)  94  S.  W.  643. 
Additional  Duties  of  Superintendent.  —  Mc- 

Kenzie  z\  Board  of  Education,   i   Cal.  App.  406, 

82  Pac.   39^. 

Graduated  Salaries  for  County  Superin- 
tendents. —  Dickev  County  v.  Denning,  14  N. 
Dak.  -7,   103  N.  W.  422. 

53.  I,    Doubet  v.  Board  of  Directors,  (Iowa 

1907)  III   N.  W.  326. 

Duty  of  County  Superintendent.  —  Mc- 
Kenzie  v.  Board  of  Education,  i  Cal.  App.  406, 
82  Pac.  392. 

County  Superintendent  Has  No  Control 
over  Schools  in  Special  Districts.  —  Dickey 
County  T'.  Hicks.  14  X.  Dak.  73,  103  N.  W.  423. 

County  Commissioners.  —  The  action  of  the 
county  superintendent  in  organizing  a  school 
district  may  be  reviewed  on  appeal  to  the 
county  commissioners,  whose  decision  shall  be 
final.  Wilsey  v.  Cornwall,  40  Wash.  250,  82 
Pac.  303. 

Fabrick,    (N.   Dak.    1907)    112   N. 


3- 
W. 


State 


■4- 
State 


Huegle,   (Iowa 
Fabrick.    (N.  Dak 


5 

234. 

6.  State 
W.   74. 

54.     2.    State  v.  Lindemann,  (Wis 
N.   W.   214. 


907)    112  N.  W. 

1907)    112  N. 

907)  III 


.*Z0Ji^AA^J^^£VJfMJOfJfJ 


Vol.  XXV. 


SCHOOLS. 


55-63 


3.  School  Dist.  No.  13  v.  County  Superin- 
tendent of  Public  Schools,  36  Colo.  393,  85 
Pac.  696;  Lindblad  v.  Board  of  Education,  221 
111.  261,  77  N.  E.  450;  Underwood  j'.  County 
School  Com'rs,  103  Md.  181,  63  .A.tl.  221  ;  Dun- 
can v.  Heyward,  74  S.  Car.  560,  54  S.  E.  760. 

4.  Gibson  v.  Mabrey,  145  Ala.  112,  40  So. 
297 ;  McKenzie  v.  Board  of  Education,  i  Cal. 
App.  410,  82  Pac.  394;  Clark  v.  Cline,  123  Ga. 
856,  SI  S.  E.  617;  People  v.  Welsh,  225  111. 
364,  80  N.  E.  313;  Latonia  Graded  School 
Dist.  No.  12  v.  Board  of  Education,  (Ky.  1906) 
93  S.  W.  590  ;  Farrell  v.  Board  of  Education, 
113  N.  Y.  App.  Div.  40s,  98  N.  Y.  Supp.   1046. 

Statutes  Provide  for  County  Board  of 
Education. —  State  v.  Thompson,  142  .Ala.  98, 
38   So.   679. 

Taxes  for  Other  than  Building  Purposes 
cannot  be  levied  by  a  board  of  education.  St. 
Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  People,  224  111.  155,  79 
N.    E.   664. 

55.  I.  Board  of  Trustees  of  School  City 
Not  "  Officers  and  Employees  of  Government 
of "  a  Civil  City.  —  Agar  r.  Pagin,  39  Ind. 
App.   567.   79   N.   E.  379. 

School  Committees  Are  Public  Officials  and 
Not  Town  Agents.  —  Morse  7:  .Ashley,  193 
Mass.  294,  7Q  N.  E.  481. 

Electors  Have  Constitutional  Right  to  Elect 
School  Boards.  —  State  v.  Lindemann,  (Wis. 
1907)    III    N.   W.   214. 

4.  McGlone  v.  Zornes,  (Ky.  1908)  107  S.  W. 
329- 

7.  State  V.  Fasse,  189  Mo.  532,  88  S.  W.    i. 

56.  I.  Stater.  Lindemann,  (Wis.  1907)  iii 
N.    W.    214. 

Temporary  Removal  from  the  District  by  a 
trustee  will  not  forfeit  his  office.  McGlone  v. 
Zornes,    (Ky.    1908)     107    S.    W.    329. 

4.  Com.  V.  Parsons,  217  Pa.  St.  435,  66  Atl. 
657. 

5.  State  V.  Cave,  26  Ohio  Cir.  Ct.  301. 

6.  Hertel  v.  Boismenue,  229  111.  474,  82  N. 
E.  298 ;  Common  School  Dist.  No.  32  v.  Kane, 
(Ky.  1905)  87  S.  W.  321  ;  Creech  v.  Common 
School  Dist.  No.  15,  (Ky.  1907)  102  S.  W. 
804;  Allentown  v.  Wagner,  214  Pa.  St.  210, 
63    Atl.    697. 

Trustees  Have  Control  of  School  Property. 
—  Baggerly  v.  Lee,  37  Ind-  App.  139,  73  N.  E. 
921. 

The  Words  "  Unless  Free  Transportation  Is 
Provided "  do  not  make  it  mandatory  on  the 
part  of  school  board  to  provide  free  transporta- 
tion. State  V.  Jackson,  168  Ind.  384,  81  N. 
E.    62. 

The  Courts  Cannot  Control  the  Action  of 
a  School  Board  in  fixing  the  day  for  holding 
teachers'  examinations.  Cohn  v.  Townsend, 
(Supm.  Ct.  Spec.  T.)  48  Misc.  (N.  Y.^  47,  94 
N.   Y.   Supp.   817. 

7.  Schmutz  V.  Special  School  Dist.,  78  Ark. 
118,  95  S.  W.  438;  Escondido  Lumber,  etc., 
Co.  t'.  Baldwin,  2  Cal.  App.  606,  84  Pac.  284 ; 
State  -•.  Jackson,  168  Ind.  384.  81  N.  E.  62; 
Ries  z'.  Hemmer,  127  Iowa  408.  iot  N.  W. 
346  ;  Churchill  7'.  Highland  Park  Graded  School, 
(Ky.  1905)  89  S.  W.  122  ;  Treadw-ay  7'.  Daniels, 
(Ky.  1906)  92  S.  W.  981  :  Howard  v.  School 
Dist.  No.  27,  (Ky.  1907)  102  S.  W.  318:  Board 
of  Education  v.  Atwood,  (N.  J.   1907)   65  Atl. 


999;  Buckbee  v.  Board  of  Education,  115  N. 
Y.  App.  Div.  366,  100  N.  Y.  Supp.  943;  State 
T'.   True,    116   Tenn.   294,  95   S.  "W.    1028. 

An  Ultra  Vires  Act  of  a  board  of  school 
commissioners  in  making  a  loan  may  be  rati- 
fied by  the  legislature  if  there  is  no  impair- 
ment of  a  contract  or  violation  of  vested  rights. 
Courtner  v.  Etheredge,  (Ala.   1907)  43  So.  369. 

Transportation.  —  The  duty  of  a  school 
board  "  to  provide  suitable  school  facilities  and 
accommodations  "  does  not  impose  the  duty  to 
furnish  free  transportation  for  pupils.  Board 
of  Education  f.  .Atwood,  73  N.  J.  L.  315,  62 
.Atl.    1 130. 

A  Board  of  School  Examiners  is  not  pro- 
hibited from  continuing  beyond  noon  of  Satur- 
day an  examination  of  applicants  for  school 
teachers,  where  the  statute  declares  that  Satur- 
day afternoons  shall  be  deemed  a  half  holiday 
"  for  all  purposes  whatsoever  as  regards  the 
transaction  of  business  in  the  public  offices  of 
this  state."  Cohn  z'.  Townsend,  (Supm.  Ct. 
Spec.  T.)  48  Misc.  (N.  Y.)  47,  94  N.  Y.  Supp. 
817. 

Board  Has  Power  to  Abolish  Unnecessary 
Positions. —  People  v.  Board  of  Education,  114 
N.  Y.  App.  Div.   I,  99  N.  Y.  Supp.  737. 

9.  McGinn  v.  Willey,  (Cal.  App.  1097)  91 
Pac.  423:  Mouser  v.  Spaulding,  (Ky.  1906)  96 
S.  W.  882  ;  Pugh  V.  School  Dist.  No.  s,  114  Mo. 
App.  688,  91  S.  W.  471  ;  State  v.  Cartwright, 
122  Mo.  App.  257,  99  S.  W.  48;  Rochford  v. 
School  Dist.  No.  6,  19  S.  Dak.  435,  103  N.  W. 
763. 

57.  I.  Kitchens  v.  School  Dist.  No.  180,  5 
Penn.  (Del.)  325,  62  Atl.  897 ;  Saunders  v. 
O'Bannon,  (Ky.  1905)  87  S.  W.  1105:  Board  of 
Education  z:  Newport  Nat.  Bank,  (Ky.  1906) 
90  S.  W.  569;  Short  V.  Langston,  (Ky.  1907) 
102   S.   W.   236. 

58.  2.  Morse  v.  Ashley,  193  Mass.  294,  79 
N.    E.   481. 

59.  I.  Murray  v.  Wilkes-Barre  Tp.  School 
Dist.,   33    Pa-    Super.   Ct.   373- 

2.  Schmutz  7'.  Soecial  School  Dist.,  78  Ark. 
118.  95  S.  W.  438." 

60.  II.  Richards  v.  School  Tp.,  132  Iowa 
612,  109  N.  W.  1093;  Bishop  V.  Fuller,  (Neb. 
1907)    no    N.   W.    715. 

61.  2.  Whitaker,  etc.,  Co.  7'.  Roberts,  155 
Fed.  882;  State  v.  Theus,  114  La.  1097,  38 
So.  870. 

3.  State  7'.  Black,  166  Ind.  138,  76  N.  E.  882; 
Kinzer  7-.  Independent  School  Dist.,  129  Iowa 
441,  los  N.  W.  686;  Kinney  7'.  Howard,  133 
Iowa  94,  no  N.  W.  282:  Queeny  7'.  Higgins, 
(Iowa  1907)  114  N.  W.  51  ;  Montclair  v.  Bax- 
ter.   (N.    J.    1908)    68    .Atl.    704- 

An  Appeal  to  the  County  Superintendent  is 
the  remedy  for  persons  aggrieved  by  the  re- 
fusal of  a  school  board  to  furnish  free  trans- 
portation for  children,  as  mandamus  will  not 
hold.  Nelson  7-.  State,  (Ind.  1907)  81  N.  E. 
486. 

62.  3.  Redfield  7-.  School  Dist.  No.  3, 
(Wash.    1907)    02   Pac.    770. 

5.  Clarke  v.  School  Dist.  No.  16,  84  Ark. 
516.  106  S.  W.  677;  Clark  v.  Cline,  123  Ga. 
856.   51    S.   E.    617. 

63.  3.  Los  Angeles  v.  Kirk,  148  Cal.  385, 
83  Pac.  250 ;  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  People, 

721 


64-9d 


SCINTILLA   OF  E I LDENCE  —  SEAMEN. 


Vol.  XXV. 


224  III.  iss,  80  N.  E.  303:  State  v.  Rice,  sz 
Mont.  365,  83  Pac.  874  ;  State  v.  Knoxville, 
IIS    Tenn.    17s.    00    S.    W.    .'So. 

State  Constitution  Prohibits  Appropriation 
of  Education  Funds  in  Aid  of  Sectaii;''. 
Schools.  —  Hackett  r.  Brooksville  Ciiaikd 
School    Dist..    i-'o    Ky.    608,   87    S.   W.    79^- 

Mistake  in  Number  of  Taxable  Properties. 
—  Creech  v.  Common  School  Uist.  No.  15,  (Ky. 
1907)   102  S.  W.  804. 

4.  Los  Angeles  County  v.  Kirk,  148  Cal.  385, 
83  Pac.  250 ;  Board  of  Education  v.  Hyatt, 
(Cal.  1907)  93  Pac.  117;  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  V.   People.   224    III.    155,   80    N.   E.   303. 

School  Fund  a  Continuing  Fund.  —  State  v. 
Gardner,  (Neb.  1907)  112  N.  W.  373;  Lowery 
V.  Graded  School  Trustees,  140  N.  Car.  33, 
52    S.    E.    267. 

Where  the  Voters  of  a  District  Have  Power 
to  Vote  Tax  Levies  for  school  purposes,  they 
have  absolute  discretion  as  to  the  amount  ap- 
propriated. Lowrance  v.  Schwab,  (Tex.  Civ. 
App.    1907)    loi    S.    W.    840. 

64.  I.  Patterson  v.  Knapp,  (Ky.  1907)  10 1 
S.  W.  379 ;  Smith  v.  Robersonville  Graded 
School,  141  N.  Car.  143,  53  S.  E.  524;  Murph 
V.   Landrum,   76  S.   Car.   21,   56  S.   E.  850. 

2.  State  V.  True,  116  Tenn.  294,  95  S.  W. 
1028. 

3.  Church  V.  Bullock,  (Tex.  1908)    109  S.  W. 

us- 
es.    I.   Clark  V.  Cline,  123  Ga.  856,  51  S.  E. 
617;    School    Dist.    No.    2j   v.    Twin    Falls,    13 
Idaho    471,    90    Pac.    735:    Lowery    v.    Graded 
School  Trustees,   140  N.  Car.  33,  52  S.  E.  26-]. 

66.  3.  State  v.  Clausen,  40  Wash.  95,  82 
Pac.    187. 

5.  State  V.  Rice,  ^,2,  Mont.  365,  83  Pac.  874  ; 
Copelin  V.  School  Directors,  215  Pa.  .St.  359, 
64  Atl.  542  :  State  v.  Griffith,  74  Ohio  St.  80, 
^^  N.   E.   686. 

School  Treasurer  a  Public  Officer.  —  State  v. 
Harter,    iSS  Mo.  516.  S7  S.  W.  041. 

City  Treasurer  May  Be  ex-Officio  School 
Treasurer  of  School  District.  —  Com.  v.  Mid- 
(lleton.    210    Pa.    St.    582.    60    Atl.    297. 

67.  3.  Failure  of  Authorities  to  Prose- 
cute Bond.  —  Any  householder  of  the  school 
district  may  prosecute  on  a  breach  of  the  con- 
dition of  a  treasurer's  bond  on  failure  of  a 
school  director  to  act.  School  Dist.  No.  9 
V.    Brand,    71    Kan.    728,   81    Pac.   473. 

SCINTILLA    OF    EVIDENCE. 

68.  3.  Scintilla  of  Evidence.  —  See  Taylor 
V.  Atlantic  Coast  Line  R.  Co.,  78  S.  Car.  531, 
59    S.    E.    641. 

SCRAP    STEEL. 

69.  4.  Scrap    Steel  —  Revenue    Laws.  — 

Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.  :•.  McCall,  147  Fed.  925  ; 
Ginsberg  v.  U.   S.,    147   Fed.   531. 

SEALS. 

74.  5.  Atlanta,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  McKinney, 
124  Ga.   929,   S3   S.   E.   701. 

6.  Philip  7'.  Stearns,  20  S.  Dak.  220,  los 
N.  W.  467,  citing  2S  Am.  and  Exg.  Encyc.  of 
Law    (2d  ed.)    74. 


7.  W.  B.  Conkey  Co.  v.  Goldman,  125  111. 
App.    161. 

75.  6.  Philip  V.  Stearns,  20  S.  Dak.  220, 
105    N.    W.    4f'7. 

76.  I.  Jackson  v.  Security  Mut.  L.  Ins.  Co., 
2^^  111.  161,  84  N.  E.  198;  Chamberlain  v. 
Fernbach,  118  111.  App.  149,  citing  2s  Am. 
AND   Eng.   Encyc.   of   Law    (2d  ed.)    76. 

4.  Atlanta,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  McKinney,  124 
Ga.  929,  53  S.  E.  701  ;  Burnette  v.  Young,  107 
Va.    184.    S7    S.    E.    641. 

77.  6.  Rockwell  v.  Capital  Traction  Co.,  25 
App.   Cas.   (D.   C.)   98,  4  Ann.  Cas.  648. 

78.  4.  Langley  v.  Owens,  52  Fla.  302,  42 
So.    457. 

79.  I.  Bliss  V.  Harris,  38  Colo,  jz,  87  Pac. 
1076  ;  Griffing  Bros.  Co.  v.  Winfield,  53  Fla. 
589,  43  So.  687  ;  Morrill  v.  Catholic  Order  of 
Foresters,  79  Vt.  479,  65  Atl.  S26,  citing  2s 
Am.  and  Eng.  Encyc.  of  Law  (2d  ed.)  79; 
Stockland  v.  Hall,  4s  Wash.   197.  88  Pac.   123. 

80.  4.  Jackson  v.  Security  Mut.  L.  Ins.  Co., 
2Z^    III.    161.   84   N.    E.    iq8. 

"(L.  S.)"  a  Scrawl  under  Florida  Statute.— 
Langley   v.   Owens,    52    Fla.    302,   42   So.   457. 

7.  Seal  Unnecessary  to  Conveyance  or  Cove- 
nant in  Georgia.- — Atlanta,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Mc- 
Kinney,   124   Ga.   929,   53    S.    E.    701. 

9.  Where  no  Official  Seal  Is  Required  an 
instrument  under  the  officer's  hand  and  with- 
out his  seal  is  valid.  State  v.  Fogg,  206  Mo. 
696.    105   S.  W.  618. 

A  Summons  Without  the  Official  Seal  is 
held  in  Kansas  to  be  absolutely  void.  Kelso  v. 
Morton,  74  Kan.  442,  87  Pac.  184.  But  in 
North  Carolina  the  omission  of  the  seal  from 
a  summons  is  held  to  be  a  mere  irregularity, 
cured  by  subsequently  affixing  the  proper  seal. 
\'ick  T'.  Flournoy.  (N.  Car.  1908)  60  S.  E.  978. 
Tax  Deed  Without  Official  Seal  Valid  Where 
No  Seal  Prescribed.  —  State  v.  Olson,  45  Wash. 
689,   89    Pac.    151. 

81.  5.  Omission  Cured  by  Statute.  — 
Barnes  v.  Multnomah  County,   145  Fed.  695. 

Legal  Title  Not  Conveyed.  —  Burnette  v. 
Young,    107    \'a.    184.    57    S.    E.    641. 

8.  A  Tax  Deed  Not  under  the  Official  Seal 
has  been  held  valid  and  admissible  in  evidence 
where  no  official  seal  was  prescribed  although 
rcciuired.  Spokane  Terminal  Co.  v.  Stanford, 
44   Wash.  4.S.  87   Pac.   37. 

82.  I.  Comparison  of  Seals  Permissible  to 
Prove  Forgery.  —  Loring  -•.  Jackson,  (Tex.  Civ. 
App.    1906)   95    S.   W.    19. 

SEAMEN. 

87.  5.  Crew  —  Those  on  Board  Aiding  in 
Navigation.  —  The  Round  Brook,  146  Fed.   160. 

88.  5.   The  Mars.   (C.  C.  A.)    149  Fed.  729. 

89.  I.   The  Sadie  C.  Sumner,  142  Fed.  611. 
3.  Recovery  Allowed  for  Charges  by  Others 

than  Shipping  Commissioners.  —  It  has  been 
held  that  money  advanced  to  ship  brokers  for 
securing  a  crew  and  expenses  incurred  are 
recoverable  although  payment  made  in  vio- 
lation of  Rev.  St.  U.  S.,  §  4592.  Maffitt  v. 
Hammerland,    (N.   Car.    1908)    60   S.   E.   713. 

7.  Com.  V.  Bartlett,  190  Mass.  148,  76  N.  E. 
607. 

92.  4.  Board  of  Trade  v.  Baxter,  (1907) 
A.   C.   373,  9  Ann.   Cas.  501. 


1722 


^***'y»iPjr#^#"rrcrirjrji:i>ji.^ 


i 


•^^/ 


•-#^»#A«i«V^tf5«^COP^JlAPA»W 


DNIV^ESSITT  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBEARY 

BERKELEY 

THIS  BOOK  IS  DUT^  THE  LAST  DATE 

STAMPED  BELOW 

to  $1.00  per  volume  a  fer  the  .K-fii'  T'"""^^^'  increasing 
demand  may  be  renewed  if  annnl,^"^'- •  ^"o^s  not  in 
expiration  of  loan  period         ''PP'"=^''on  's  made  before 


onT 


16  ^9^-^ 


50m-7,'16 


\  1  i 


157 


YD  00775 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


*.iJ 


JS-  . 


